Sec.43B can only be invoked when the assessee claims deduction for any sum payable by way of tax or duty, under any law for the time being in force, and, as such, where no such deduction is claimed nor charged made to the profit and loss account, there is no question of disallowing the amount. Having regard to the facts, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under sec.43B.
I have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before me and the precedents relied upon. The assessee got share in the house property, as per the WILL of his father He became the joint owner of the property along with his brother. After becoming the joint owner of the said property the assessee sold shares for the purpose of construction of an additional floor in the house for him and the cost to the construction was claimed as exempted under sec 54F.
2. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon. This appeal is directed against the order passed under section 263 of the Act. The assessee is a company. For the relevant assessment year in the balance sheet of the assessee a provision for gratuity was reflected at Rs.7,85,600/ -. The assessee claimed this as deduction in the return of income
The scheme of levying Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) on zero-tax companies was introduced by the Finance Act 1996 w. e f. 01.04.1997. A new section 115JAA was also inserted to provide for a tax-credit scheme by which the MAT paid can be carried forward for set-off against regular tax payable during the subsequent years, subject to certain conditions The sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 115JAA read as under.
The assessee, who is a non-resident, brought money into India through banking channel and the manner in which this money was utilized in India is described in the Annexure. We have observed in the above paragraphs that because of the mode of banking channel, admittedly, used for the remittance in this case, the onus on the assessee u/s 69 stood discharged, and therefore it was not taxable in India u/s 5(2)(b) of the Act. The CBDT Circular (supra) squarely supports the case of the assessee. The fact that the transactions and events narrated in the Annexure look curious and suspicious makes no difference to the conclusions that we have drawn in this case, as per law, in the above paragraphs.
This appeal came before me as Third Member to express my opinion on the following question:- “Whether in view of the facts and circumstances, the issue relatable to computation of deduction under section 801B, the order of the Id. CIT(A) could be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer could be restored or matter can be set aside and remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration?
25. We now proceed to examine the contention of the revenue that the principle of parity between export turnover and total turnover was rejected by the Supreme Court in Nair’s case (supra). In this case the narrow dispute which arose for determination was whether the department was right in including the processing charges received by the assessee in the total turnover while arriving at the export profits u/s.80HHC(3)
Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully in the light of the materials and the case laws referred to. The question for our consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of payment made by the assessee to its parent company by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred by the. parent company in connection with the activities carried on by the assessee.
12.2 One can see very clearly that the clause (ii), introduced in section 32(1), w.e.f.01-04- 1999, not only extended the benefit of section 32 to the `intangible assets’ but also gave therein an `inclusive’ definition of the `intangible assets’, for this purpose. 15.4 It becomes clear from the above discussion that capability to have a market value, assignability
Srivatsan Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. (‘Appellant’) is engaged in the business of licensed surveyors and loss assessors under the Insurance Act, 1938. The Appellant entered into a non-compete covenant with its director, Mr. Srivatsan and paid a sum of Rs.10 million, on which depreciation was claimed, treating it as an intangible asset. As per the covenant, Mr. Srivatsan agreed not to carry on his individual business of general insurance survey, loss assessment, valuation of assets, etc. for a period of seven years and also to abstain from other activities which might jeopardize the business interests of the Appellant in any manner.
