When the interest payable on the original loan is not allowable u/s 24(1)(vi), then the interest paid or payable on the second loan for repayment of original loan is also not allowable.
We have considered the rival contentions, relevant record and various decisions relied upon by both the parties. The undisputed factual position emerging out of the record is that in the case of first assessee in ITA Nos.826 & 827/09 the return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 was filed on due date but the return of income for
Section 46(2) provides that when a shareholder receives money or any other asset from a company on its liquidation, then such shareholder shall be charged to capital gains tax. This capital gain is on account of transfer of shares effected by extinguishment of rights in the shares. The section further provides
Section 80-IA(5) would come into operation only from the year in which the assessee started claiming deduction under section 80-IA i.e. from the initial year and the depreciation relating to the years prior to the initial assessment year cannot be brought back notionally to be adjusted against the income of the initial or subsequent assessment yearsSection 80-IA(5) would come into operation only from the year in which the assessee started claiming deduction under section 80-IA i.e. from the initial year and the depreciation relating to the years prior to the initial assessment year cannot be brought back notionally to be adjusted against the income of the initial or subsequent assessment years
The issue to be considered is whether the profit earned by the assessee from the activity of recruitment and training of personnel and supplying the data thereof to its parent company in US is eligible for deduction under sec.lOA or not read with the Board’s Circular dated 26.9.2000. In this connection, it would be worthwhile to consider first the role of the circulars issued by the Board.
I have duly considered the rival contentions and the material en record. The perception of the CIT that the profit is low prompted him to issue show cause notice to the assessee. Profit before taxation of the company as a whole for the year under consideration
Coming to the first point of difference it seems to me that even after the introduction of block of assets concept, there is no change in the legal position to the effect that the assessee^ would be entitled to depreciation even though the assets in question were not actually put to use in the relevant previous year, but were kept ready for being put to use for the purpose of the business. The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, on this question is in C1T vs. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 675. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court was concerned with the assessment year 1971-72 and with the claim of development of rebate made by the assessee, Sec.33 of the Act dealt with development rebate. An assessee can c
The sale/transfer of stock-in-trade cannot be equated with the transfer of capital asset under section 2(47). The meaning of the words “otherwise transferred” in section 45(2), should be according to its ordinary popular and natural sense, and it should not include a transaction referred to under sub-clause (v) of sub-section (47) of section 2 in relation to a ‘capital asset’.
In ACIT Vs Rogini Garments108 ITD 49 the Special Bench at Chennai held that relief allowed u/s 80-IA had to be deducted from profits and gains of assessee’s business on which relief u/s 80HHC of the Act is to be computed. Subsequently, the Madras High Court in SCM Creations 304 ITR 319 took a contrary view. The question whether Rogini Garments was impliedly overruled was referred
Now, as per admitted facts of this case and as also noted by this Tribunal in their earlier order, the returns where assessee claimed interest were treated as non est returns. Hence, assessee had relied upon Hon’ble Madras High Court in the Narayanan Chettiar Industries case cited above. In this case the Hon’ble High Court was of the opinion that in respect of remission of liability,
