Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) -Once there is no claim of income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, there cannot be any disallowance in relation to an investment which may or may not give rise to any Oincome which does not form part of the total income. In the present case it is noticed thatnone of the investments made by the assessee has generated any dividend income which has been claimed by the assessee ato be not to form part of the total income. In the circumstances, as it is noticed that the assessee does not have any income which does not form part of the total income nor has the assessee made such a claim, we are of the view that no disallowance under sec. 14A can be made on the assessee for the relevant assessment year.
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Tiruchirapalli (ITAT Chennai) -Where the AO has considered all the points, on the basis of which the CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263, following the decision of the ITAT and High Court in the case of the assessee itself, proceedings initiated u/s 263 are not valid as it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
DCIT v. AIG Home Finance India Ltd. The taxpayer was a housing finance company. The taxpayer had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act (ITA) in respect of securitization income earned from the business of long term housing finance. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction to the taxpayer on the basis that the taxpayer had received the proceeds on loan securitization and not the interest income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of the taxpayer. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the AO preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
Rane Brake Lining Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has not invoked the provisions of sec. 14A. In fact the Assessing Officer has pointed out that the total investment in shares as on 31.03.2003 was Rs. 26,00,31,694/- which included a sum of Rs. 5,28,82,350/- invested during the year. No dividend income has also been admitted during the relevant assessment year. A peRs.rusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee had put forward the plea that it had surplus and reserves sufficient to cover such investment in purchase of shares.
Assessment dispute: ITAT Chennai ruling on book profit computation, bad debts provision, and disputed tax liabilities under Section 115JB.
The above four appeals filed by the Revenue, for assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06, are directed against the common order dated 27-5-2008 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-VIII, Chennai. In all these appeals almost identical issues are involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are deciding them by a common order.
Recently, the Chennai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Wheels India Ltd. v. ACIT I.T.A No. 1793/Mds/2006 (Chennai) held that payment made to US companies for ‘developing tooling’ and ‘validating new process for manufacture’ of wheels for commercial vehicle was ‘fees for included services’ as per Article 122 of the India-USA tax treaty.
Assessing Officer’s stand that ‘provision of computation of income under Section 11′ does not contain any provision which may entitle an assessee to claim weighted deduction for any expenses incurred’ is not acceptable as Section 11 provides that the income of the Trust is to be computed on commercial basis i.e. as per normal accounting principles. Normal Accounting Principles clearly provide for deducting depreciation to arrive at income. Income so arrived at (after deducting depreciation) is to be applied for charitable purpose.
As per clause (a) of Rule 49, an ‘authorized income-tax practitioner’ is any authorized representative as defined in clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 288 for appearing before this Tribunal.
The Chennai Tribunal has held that payments towards IPLC / dedicated bandwidth are towards use of ‘equipment’ or ‘process’ and therefore would qualify as royalty under the Act as well as DTAA. It may be noted that the proposition on ‘process’ eleme
