Since there is variation of decisions on ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ issue in view of the fact that the hon’ble Calcutta high court and Gujarat high court have decided the question in favour of the Revenue and the hon’ble Allahabad high court in the case of CIT vs M/s Vector shipping Services (P) Ltd has proceeded in favour of the assessee, the case law of hon’ble supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 would apply so as to decide the issue in assessee’s favour.
From the above discussion, it transpires that the objective satisfaction of the AO as to the correctness of the assessee’s claim was not recorded in the instant case. However, even if Rule 8D cannot be applied, the AO is obliged to ascertain the expenditure which had been incurred to earn the tax-free income.
We find that the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court is in favour of the assessee. At the same time, we find that the orders of the Calcutta High Court and the Gujarat High Court are against the assessee.
In our view, offering of the so called service to a particular section as in the instant case to members of the assessee organization only does not in any way lead to a charitable activity for the purpose of sec.2(15) of the Act.
Some of the investments made by the assessee are short term. Since assessee is paying capital gains tax on short term investments, the provisions of Rule 8D will not apply on them. The Assessing Officer is directed to re¬compute dis-allowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D after excluding short term investments.
The first issue in the appeal of the assessee relates to dis-allowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. The Assessing Officer has made dis-allowance to the tune of Rs. 4,32,66,500/-. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 4.6 Lakhs which is fully exempt u/s.
The assessee had categorically stated that the assessee had claimed deduction under the provisions of section 10B for the first time in the assessment year 1995-96. This fact has been admitted by the Revenue in the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee has placed on record the order of the CIT(A) dated 21.10.2005 relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000 at page 10 to 16 of the paper book.
Issue – Assessee in this appeal had sold a residential house at Film Nagar, Hyderabad, during the relevant previous year, for a sum of Rs. 6,50,00,000/-. After deducting indexed cost of acquisition, the long term capital gain came to Rs. 5,98,25,430/-.
If the assessee is able to keep the six months’ limit from the date of transfer of capital asset, but, still able to place investment of Rs. 50 lakhs each in two different financial years, we cannot say that the restrictive proviso will limit the claim to Rs. 50 lakhs only.
In the return of income, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. During the course of assessment, the assessee disclosed that apart from property purchased at Kodaikanal for Rs. 1,14,88,000/-
