Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Income Tax – Section 80IB(2)(iv) – Determination of whether a business activity of “assembling” amounts to manufacturing for relief u/s 80IB – whether employment of temporary workers is enough to claim the relief – YES
The facts in brief leading to the controversy are that unaccounted commission earned by the assessee was unearthed during the search. In his return of income, the assessee claimed expenditure incurred to earn the said income which the Assessing Officer disallowed under sec.69C of the Act. The CIT (A) deleted this disallowance by observing that sec.69C along with the pro
whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non- eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking). The SB held that the amount eligible for tax holiday was specific to each undertaking of the Taxpayer
The issue before the SB was that, while computing the amounts eligible for tax holiday under the Indian Tax Law (ITL), whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non-eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking)
In respect of AY 2003-04, the assessee had an unit in Chennai which was engaged in software development and whose profits were eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The assessee had another unit in Delhi which was engaged in trading and had suffered a loss. The assessee claimed that it was eligible for a deduction u/s 10A
The second proviso to section 10B(1) cannot be construed to be a qualifying condition for claiming deduction. It just permits additional benefit which may be allowed provided domestic profit is within the limit prescribed in the proviso. On the panoply of this proviso deduction cannot be denied. The assessee would be entitled to partial deduction proportionately on export turnover in view of the provisions of sub-section(4) of section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Just because Satellite was owned by another company, would not change the colour of payment, which would remain a `royalty’.
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
