ACIT v Mehsana District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd(Ahemdabad ITAT)- Once the depreciation allowable under s 32(1) cannot be allowed or partly allowed, the unabsorbed portion of such depreciation automatically becomes the depreciation of the subsequent year, subject to the provisions of s 72(2) and 73(3. The carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, as per s 32(2), is automatic and the assessee is not required to fulfil any condition so as to be entitled to obtain such carry forward.
Bisazza India (P) Ltd. v CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) – We feel the restriction contained in section 80AB or section 80B(5) could not be applied in as much as carry forward of business loss or depreciation should not be first set-off leaving gross total income nil, which disentitles the assessee for deduction under other provisions of Chapter VIA-C which includes section 80HHC also. But assessees’ contention that export profit has to be computed with reference to the profit and loss account prepared under the Companies Act is equally unacceptable because there is no such provision in section 80HHC to determine export profit with reference to Profit and loss account maintained under the Companies Act.
Meredith Traders (P) Ltd. v ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Provisions of s 79 are not applicable to company originally registered as a private company and then became a public company by virtue of the provisions of s 3(iv)(c) of the Companies Act in which public are substantially interested within the meaning of s 2(18) of the Income tax Act, 1961
Dy. CIT v Niten Hasmukhbhai Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad)- Since the finding of Ld. CIT(A) that there was no oral or written contract with the assessee and the Roopal Roadways which is confirmed by the clarificatory certificate issued by Roopal Roadways, was not disputed by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us, we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) holding that provision of section 194C(3) of the Act are not applicable in this case and consequently no addition u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made.
Shantaben Karshanbhai Patel v Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad) – Merely because the AO passed the order u/s 154 of the IT Act would not make it appealable before the learned CIT(A) u/s 246A of the IT Act. The claim of interest simpliciter is not appeallable order before the learned CIT(A) as per section 246A of the IT Act. The crux of the matter shall have be seen in entirety and quoting wrong provisions of law would make it appeallable order before the learned CIT(A). The provisions of section 244A (2) are specific and on such a matter on issue the point shall have to be decided by the CCIT or CIT whose decision thereof shall be final. Accordingly, we are of the view that appeal of the assessee is not maintainable in the present form. The same is dismissed. However, the assessee is at liberty to agitate the issue before the concerned CCIT/CIT in accordance with law. The learned CCIT or CIT concerned shall decide the issue on such agitation by the assessee in accordance with law.
ACIT, Gandhinagar Vs Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd (ITAT Ahemdabad) – Only such items which are specifically mentioned in the Explanation to section 115JB need to be excluded or included, as the case be, and nothing more can be brought in. All the three items listed above do not feature in the Explanation. Otherwise, the disallowance u/s.14A would be material in computation of the normal process of income while the second item interest on investment in bonds stands already included in the book profit. As far as the prior period expenses are concerned, there is no such mention in the explanation. The assessment order on the other hand is silent as to under which category it is being included for the matter to be further analysed. Therefore, as the matter stands, none of the three items can be added for computation of book profit.
ITO v Gujarat Information Technology Fund (ITAT Ahemdabad) Interest income earned on bank deposit is exempt u/s 10(23FB) and there is no decision of SEBI that there is any violation of SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulation 1996 and, therefore, the AO cannot hold that there was such violation. The AO is duty bound to enquire whether the assessee trust is registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and has been granted a certificate of registration by SEBI under SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 and not beyond that.
S. 194C defines work to include carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways while s. 194-I defines rent to mean payment for use of plan (which is defined in s. 43 to include vehicles). As the cars were owned and maintained by the contractor and all expenditure was borne by the contractor, the contract was for carriage of passengers for which the assessee paid a fixed amount. Therefore, the payment of vehicle hire charges fell within the scope of s. 194C and was not rent for s. 194-I.
ITO (TDS-1), Ahmedabad v. Apollo Hospitals International Ltd – There are two types of agreements. One of the covenant is stated to be in the nature of employer/employee agreement and the other is stated to be FGC contract. The distinction between the two inter alia include: a) In case of the employee doctors, there is a list of allowances (basic, HRA, etc). The consultant doctors are paid a lumpsum fee. b) The employee doctors‟ agreement had a clause for leave entitlement unlike the FGC contract c) Employee doctors are not entitled for any other full time employment d) Consultant doctors were not employed by service rules but were expected to follow the code of conduct
ITO v Murlidharan G Pillai – Neither the deposits are proved by the assessee nor the claim of peak is established by him. In fact assessee has also failed to show real destination of the money through bank draft so purchased by him out of the cash deposited in the bank account thereby suppressing material facts in understanding the nature of cash inflow and its destination. Entire transaction of deposits in the bank account remained under crowd of secrecy and, therefore, the explanation furnished by the assessee remained unsatisfactory. Even the benefit of withdrawal through ATM mentioned as above cannot be given importance because they are apparently for household purposes and cannot be said to be available for redeposit in absence of any other evidence of meeting out household expenditure by the assessee. We apparently uphold the contentions of Revenue that entire sum of Rs.17,48,500/- deserves to be confirmed. As a result, we uphold the order of AO setting aside the order of ld. CIT(A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed whereas the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed.
