In the instant case, the assessee is a resident assessee. It is not borne out of record as to whether the ‘UK company’ is a resident assessee or non-resident assessee. Though the assessee claims that it is acting only as an agent of the ‘UK company’, yet the said claim has not been verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer. Even, if the assessee is considered as an agent of the UK company, in view of section 5, the said UK Company is also liable to pay tax on its Indian income and if it claims that it is not liable to pay tax as per the DTAA entered by the Central Government with the Government of UK, then it is the
While the gift is given by a person to another person who is personally related to him, the remission of trading liability takes place in business relationships. Normally, the remission of trading liability takes place only due to adverse business situation faced by a business concern.
In the instant case, the assessee did not account the interest income as there was uncertainty about its recovery. The apprehension or the situation foreseen by the assessee has been vindicated by the subsequent developments, which were well highlighted in the written submissions furnished before us. Hence we are of the view that the decision taken by the assessee for not accounting the accrued interest on the reason that there was uncertainty about its recovery cannot be found fault with. It may also be noted that the assessee itself has become defunct.
In this appeal, the only issue urged by the assessee is whether the AO was justified in netting the provision made for bad and doubtful debts, i.e. netting of new provision made during the year under consideration and the provision of earlier years written back during the year. As stated earlier, it will only be an academic exercise to address this issue.
M/s. Kenton Leisure Services, P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Cochin) – It was held that lease rental income arising from agreements for letting on lease hostel premises along with provision and maintenance of various facilities and amenities would be taxable under the head ‘Income from Business’ as against ‘Income from House Property’.The characterisation of lease rental income as ‘Income from Business’ comes as a relief to taxpayers who lease out property along with provision of facilities / amenities. However, this issue is fact specific and it would be important for taxpayers to bear the above principles in mind while determining the taxability of such revenue streams.
It is the purpose or the proximity to the purpose, which would determine the character of the asset and, thus, that of the income arising there-from and, consequently, its assessability under the Act, going on to hold that where the amount was deposited in the bank to obtain a letter of credit for purchase of a capital asset (machinery), the interest thereon would only be a capital receipt, which shall go to reduce the cost of the relevant capital asset. The said decisions, in our view, full govern the present case, and the Revenue has misapplied the decisions by the hon’ble jurisdictional high court.
Dy. DIT, Ernakulam Vs Adi Sankara Trust ( ITAT Cochin)- Income Tax – Sections 11, 12A, 32(1) – When assessee, a charitable body, has already claimed deduction for acquisition of capital assets as application of money, the further claim of depreciation on the same assets would amount to double benefits and can not be allowed.
The agreement of the assessee to acquire a rented property for running its office cannot be considered as an intangible asset similar to know how, patents, copy rights, trade marks, etc under section 32(1)(ii).
The assessee is, admittedly, neither a `primary agricultural credit society’ nor a `primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank’. As such, it is not covered by the exceptions to s. 80P(4), as provided by the said sub-section itself, denying deduction u/s. 80P to all cooperative banks. The Legislature in its wisdom restricted the exemption, which extends to the whole of the specified incomes, i.e., of cooperatives societies undertaking specified activities, w.e.f. 1/4/2007 to the said two primary units, where the assessee is a cooperative bank. The assessee in the instant case being an apex cooperative society lending money to such primary units functioning within the State of Kerala, he denied the assessee its claim for deduction u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i).
When the scheme of financing adopted by the assessee company is explained in a convincing manner, it is not fair on the part of the lower authorities to treat a part of the deposits as unexplained only for the reason that inch-by-inch documentary particulars were not furnished before them in respect of that remainder deposits.
