There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test.
The assessee has obtained a term loan from The Mahanagar Co–operative Bank Ltd., Fort Branch. It had also obtained an over draft facility. The bank debited the term loan account periodically with interest due and thereafter credited the term loan account with interest as received by debiting the over draft account in the bank. In effect, the term loan interest was paid by debiting the overdraft account. The Assessing Officer held this to be a conversion of interest liability into a loan or advance and, hence, not liable for deduction under section 43B.
The taxpayer instead of developing the land, transferred the development rights in respect of part of the land to a separate construction company.As per the agreement, the taxpayer jointly with the trust was required to convey the land to the proposed buyers. Instead of developing land, the taxpayer parted with the development rights in respect of part of the land forever. The possession of the land had also been given during the year along with development rights. This was an independent activity having no connection with the development of the remaining part of the land.
ITAT Mumbai in this case was of the view that the perusal of AS 14 does not support the contention of the taxpayer that the investment by the taxpayer over the net assets taken over should be treated as goodwill. It was held that unless the fair valuation of assets, including any goodwill, is carried out and investment is earmarked towards purchase of goodwill, there is no question of apportioning any amount of consideration towards purchase of goodwill. The consideration in the form of cancellation of investments cannot be said to have been made for purchase of assets at book value, when the fair value of each asset and liability is much higher.
The dispute is regarding assessment of income receivable by the assessee from the transfer of development rights. The case of the assessee is that granting of development rights was an integral part of development project which was one indivisible project and therefore, the income had to be assessed @ 25% as part of the development project. We, are however unable to accept the claim made by the assessee.
Assessee claimed set off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 64. 11 lakh for assessment year 1998-99 against the income of the relevant year i.e. assessment year 2006-2007. The assessee company was asked to submit its shareholding pattern as on 3 1st March, 1998 and 31st March, 2006. From the shareholding pattern submitted by the assessee which has been reproduced in the assessment order, the A.O. observed that as on the year ending 1998 M/s. Concept Reality & Securities Limited held 1,22,280 equity shares, being 58.12% of the total capital.
While scrutinizing the balance sheet of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 3,57,428/- from M/s. Third Eye Qualitative Researchers Pvt. Ltd. of which she is a director having substantial interest. Accordingly, the said loan of Rs. 3,57,428/- was added as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The AO sought explanation u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-1. The assessee furnished detailed reply dt. 6.3.2009. The explanation of the assessee was rejected by AO who levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,20,310/-.
Directors of the company have undergone foreign travelling for the purpose of export and looking for the business avenues abroad. The details submitted by the assessee though only provides the date of travelling, details of country visited and amount of fare, visa charges and other miscellaneous expenses incurred, however, the Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to show that the foreign travelling was for personal purposes.
this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT Vs Rolta India Ltd. 330 ITR 470 wherein it has been held that in case of company which are liable to tax u/s. 115JB / minimum alternative tax , have to pay interest u/s. 234B/234C of the Act.
The facts of the case are that the assessee had leased its property at Vidyavihar to Minicon Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. (MIWPL) at Rs. 22,56,000, which in turn was leased out by MIWPL to various other parties, from which it was receiving rents of Rs. 1,59,34,618. The AO, relying on the orders of the preceding years, added the rents received by MIWPL at Rs. 1,59,34,618 in the hands of the assessee, holding that the rent agreement between the assessee and MIWPL was a sham, and the entire rent received by the company actually belonged to the assessee, as assessee and MIWPL are related parties.
