The stand of the revenue that expenditure incurred by the society on giving presents to as own members would amount to expenditure on itself or application of its income to its members also could not be countenanced as the society was entirely a separate entity
Following the decision of ACE Builders (P) 28 ITR 2000(Bom) and Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt Ltd 262 ITR 58 (Gau). It was held that Section 54E does not make any distinction between the depreciable assets and non-depreciable assets, therefore, the investment u/s 54E is a permissible investment.
The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law in not appreciating that benefit u/s.54EC is granted on capital gains and not on sale proceeds of capital asset. And that capital gain in respect of depreciable assets can be arrived at only u/s.50 and therefore, deeming provisions of section 50 cannot be ignored for the purpose of section 54EC.
We find that with regard to the investment of Rs. 5907.18 lakhs in foreign subsidiaries, no disallowance can be made under section 14A because dividend income from foreign subsidiaries is taxable in India. Regarding balance investment of Rs. 38 crores approximately in Indian subsidiaries, we find that interest-free own funds of the assessee is many times more than this investment because interest free funds available with the assessee as on March 31, 2005 as per the balance-sheet as on that date is of Rs. 929.57 crores. There is no finding given by the Assessing Officer regarding any direct nexus between interest bearing borrowed funds and investment in Indian subsidiaries. Hence, in our considered opinion, no disallowance under section 14A can be made out of interest expenditure in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the Revenue’s appeal are rejected.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. In the preceding year, this forward contract profit was more than 6 crores. The nature of income was similar to preceding year in the year under consideration. Therefore, by following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench, we also held that the nature of receipt is business.
In this case Payment was made for reimbursement of the permission granted to the assessee for using trade mark ‘Wool, New Zealand’. Such payment cannot be said to be fee for technical services. Even otherwise also, in the light of the detailed discussions made in paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 of this order, such reimbursement of expenses are not subject to TDS. Accordingly, no disallowance is warranted. The addition of Rs. 2,88,135/- is deleted.
The search operation was carried out at the residence as well as business premises of Shri Yakub A. Colddrink where from the books of account of the firm as per Annexure A/11 & A/12 and loose paper as per Annexure-3 were found and seized. As per Section 153C, the books of account belonging to the other person is required to be found and seized at the premises of the search took place where assessment u/s. 153A has been made i.e. searched party.
The AO has noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company had vide a letter dated 4/3/2002 voluntarily offered for taxation by disallowing a sum of Rs. 15,54,260/-. In view of the said voluntary offer, the impugned amount was added back to the income of the assessee. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, it was held that the impugned amount was offered for taxation and it was not a case of mistaken impression of law, therefore, in the absence of any other material, the action of the AO was upheld.
Assessing Officer has observed that in response to show-cause notice issued to the assessee specifying the defects noticed in M/s. Agrawal Enterprises, the assessee has simply escaped by saying that it is not their mistake if the seller did not show the cash sales in their books of account. It was further observed by the Assessing Officer that on verification of the copies of account furnished by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed to have made cash purchase from M/s. Agrawal Enterprises during the period October 22, 2004 to December 31, 2005 however, verification of the contra confirmation filed by M/s. Agrawal Enterprises, it was noticed that they had not shown such cash in their account.
The hon’ble Ahmedabad Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Well Pack Packaging v. Deputy CIT reported at [2003] 78 TTJ (Ahd) 448 has held that revaluation of depreciable assets and conversion of a partnership firm into company does not lead to incidence of capital gain inasmuch as revaluation is made in the hands of the assessee by writing up the value of assets in the books. In view of the provisions of sections 575, 576 and 577 of the Companies Act, 1956, there is no transfer involved when a company got itself registered under Part IX of the Companies Act. In view of this, there is no question of applicability of the provision of section 45 or 50 or any other provisions of the Income-tax Act arise on conversion of a firm into company.
