There are two appeals under consideration pertaining to two different assessees for the AY 2005-06. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both these appeals are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order.
The assessee as well as the Revenue is in cross appeal against the impugned order dated 29/11/2013 of the First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. In the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.658/Mum/2014), the first ground raised pertains to confirming the reopening u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Since assessee had not claimed any expenditure in its computation of income, there was no scope for dis allowance under section 14A as dis allowance under the section can be made only when deduction of certain expenditure is claimed.
Assessee- company was engaged in business of broadcasting of sports channel, namely Ten Sports across globe, including India. Its subsidiary (Taj India) was appointed as exclusive distributor of TV Channel Ten Sports to cable operators and other permitted systems on principal-to-principal basis.
The inaction or delay on the part of the assessing officer in issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act cannot be a ground to straightway effect service by affixture.
TDS credit is allowed on deduction of Income under u/s 80IA, 8oIB, 80IC of the act, etc and also TDS credit is allowed on bad debts claimed u/s 36(1 )(vii) of the Act. Accordingly I am of the view that that the Unrealized rent is duly offered to tax by the assessee at first instance, and then the same is claimed as deduction from Rental Income u/s 23(1) of the Act r.w. Rule 4 of the rules.
It is a well settled proposition that the question as to whether a person has acted as a trader or as an investor in respect of share transactions, has to be decided on the basis of various factors listed out by the CBDT and Honourable Courts.
The ITAT Mumbai in Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd v. DCIT, held that the sale consideration received by a Singapore based Company on sale of debt instrument is not taxable as capital gain under the Income Tax Act in view of article 13(4) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
In a significant ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that if a cheque is encashed by the builder after the deadline for filing income-tax return, it will not debar the taxpayer from claiming I-T exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, which is available on reinvestment of long term capital gains in residential property.
Section 55(2)(a) talks of right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing. Therefore, as per the amended provisions, the right to manufacture/produce/process would be taxable under the head capital gains and cost has to be taken at Rs. Nil.
