19. First we will marshal the facts of the present case. The assessee had availed terms loans from three banks, viz. ICICI Bank Ltd., Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC), Hong Kong. These terms loans were availed by the assessee company for the purpose of acquiring capital assets necessarily to be deployed in the manufacturing system
12. Section 9(l)(vi)(c) provides that any income by way of royalty payable by a person who is a resident except where the royalty is payable in respect of any right, property or information used or services utilized for the purpose of a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purpose
19. We heard both sides in detail and considered the issue in the light of the facts of the present case and in the light of various judicial pronouncements relied on by the assessee as well was the Revenue. The assessee purchased the property in 1975. The Notification declaring the said property in the category of capital asset was made in 1994. The property was sold in 2006. Now the case of the assessee is that for the purpose of computing
. There is no dispute or dis-agreement regarding the nature of transactions entered into between the assessee and its distributors. The assessee company, by virtue of the licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, is engaged in providing Mobile telephone services to the public at large. The Govt, of India s allotting the licence to various parties in the field on the basis of geographical specifications.
25. There is no dispute or dis-agreement regarding the nature of transactions entered into between the assessee and its distributors. The assessee company, by virtue of the licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, is engaged in providing Mobile telephone services to the public at large. The Govt, of India s allotting the licence
When the legislature has categorically defined the purposes like religious and charitable and if the assessee-society is engaged as per their objects in mixed activities, which are partly charitable and partly religious, it cannot be said that section 11(1)(a) does not contemplate such situation.
It was held that while granting registration under section 12A of the Act where the objects of the assessee society were genuine, merely because it had incurred certain expenditure, which fell within the category of benefit to a person under section 13(3) of the Act and hence, the assessee society was held to be hit by the provisions of section 13(1) (c) of the Act, does not entitle the CIT to deny the exemption of income claimed under section 11 of the Act.
