As regarding the other addition of Rs.34,82,972/- on account of Sundry creditors the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the same by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518 (SC) without going into the facts of the case. In this case the assessee has not filed even the details of the sundry creditors and when the Bench asked for the list of sundry creditors outstanding since several years, the ld. Counsel for assessee has submitted that the books of account relating to A.Yr. 1981-82 are already seized by the revenue and lying with the revenue authorities till now.
Mitra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO – There is no dispute about the fundamental posit ion that as long as the payments are for reimbursements, and not expenditure, the tax deduct ion obligations do not come into play and accordingly, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i ) cannot be made either. In support of this proposition, our attention is invited to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Satyendra Jhunjhunwalla –vs. – ITO (ITA No. 1988/Kol. /2009; order dated 11.11.2011). He, however, fairly submits that as this aspect of the matter, i.e. payment being in the nature of reimbursement , has not been examined by the authorities below, the matter can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the above principle.
DIC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd vs. ADIT Article 2(1) of the applicable tax treaty provides that the taxes covered shall include tax and surcharge thereon. Once we come to the conclusion that education cess is nothing but an additional surcharge, it is only corollary thereto that the education cess will also be covered by the scope of Article 2. Accordingly, the provisions of Article 11 and 12 must find precedence over the provisions of the Income Tax Act and restrict the taxability, whether in respect of income tax or surcharge or additional surcharge – whatever name called, at the rates specified in the respective article.
The applicant’s counsel submitted that an item of income can be said to have been dealt with in an article of the Treaty only if it defines its scope as well as allocates the right to tax such income between the two Contracting States. Mere exclusion of shipping business profits from article 7 does not amount to dealing with that item of income. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Allocation of taxing right to the source State can well be done by such a process of exclusion. There is no particular manner or methodology of achieving that result.
In our considered view, this is a very important aspect of the matter inasmuch as if the assessee has incurred a loss on its entire project, whether onshore or offshore, the mere fact that the assessee has incurred a loss on onshore activities cannot be reason enough to show, or even indicate, that the value of the onshore activities was deliberately kept at a lower amount to avoid taxability in India. Of course, it could still make commercial sense that the offshore supplies are made at loss, as long as these supplies are at less than incremental costs i.e. marginal costs of offshore supplies, and thus overall losses of the assessee are minimized.
There is no need to capitalize the upfront fee for term loan in connection with the transfer of the loans from one bank to another against prepayment penalty charges paid to the existing banks to migrate from a costly 15% p.a. loan to chaper 10% p.a. loan offered by another bank.
A.O. In his assessment order has stated that the impounded disc. containing the books of accounts under JR-I & JR-2 from where the cash payments on 31.03.2008 were found, were not manually entered as apparent from the printout. The entries were computerized, not manual. Furthermore, as stated in the submissions dated 24.12.2010, it is not tenable as during the survey, no corroborative evidence and documents were found in support of assessee’s claim from business premises
Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs AFT Industries Ltd. 270 ITR 167 (Cal) held that amount paid as cess is eligible for deduction in computing the composite income under Rule 8 of I.T. Rules. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by upholding the order of the C.I.T.(A) who has allowed the deduction of payment of cess on green leaves in computing the composite income from tea business of the assessee under rule 8 of the I.T. Rules. We may further mention that identical issue was the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Empire Plantations (India) Ltd. and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.2005 in I.T.A.No.1600 (Kol)/2004 for A.Y. 2000-01 has allowed the claim of the assessee.
Allahabad Bank Vs. DCIT Banks eligible to claim deduction for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of advances and also claim provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia). To conclude, we hold that the provisions of Sections 36(1) (vii) and 36(1) (viia) of the Act are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. The bad debts written off in debts, other than those for which the provision is made under clause (viia), will be covered under the main part of Section 36(1) (vii), while the proviso will operate in cases under clause (viia) to limit deduction to the extent of difference between the debt or part thereof written off in the previous year and credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under clause (viia) . The proviso to Section 36(1) (vii) will relate to cases covered under Section 36(1) (viia) and has to be read with Section 36(2) (v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while under Section 36(1) (vii), the assessee would be entitled to general deduction upon an account having become bad debt and being written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year. This, obviously, would be subject to satisfaction of the requirements contemplated under Section 36.
As per the definition of ‘person’ u/s 2(31), a minor is an assessable entity even though his income is clubbed u/s 64(1A) of the Act in the hands of his parents. A minor is a person distinct from his parents and is also an individual. There is no bar in separately allotting bonds upto Rs. 50,00,000 to each such person. There is no mentioned limit on the deduction allowable to an assessee under section 54EC.(The limit of Rs.50 lakhs is ceiling on investment that may be made by an assessee and not a ceiling on deduction that may be allowed to an assessee). Thus, AO was not right in disallowing deductions in respect of bonds invested by minor children of the assessee by applying the Rs.50 lakhs limit.
