ACIT Vs Bharat Oman Refineries Limited (ITAT Mumbai) – So far as the receipts on account of tender forms and by way of water and electricity charges to the contractors were concerned, they would not be treated as arising out of a source of income separate from the business which was being set up. Since, the business had not been fully set up, the receipts and payments would be clearly on capital account and hence not liable to tax. In a case where these receipts and payments pertains to the fixed structure of the company’s business that was being set up, it would be inconsistent to hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee prior to the setting up would be of a capital nature but the receipts would be of a revenue nature.Hence, the impugned receipts were of a capital nature and were not liable to tax.
In our considered opinion, the authorities below were not justified in not granting the set off of the brought forward business loss for the reason that the requirement to file return within the time prescribed u/s.139(1) is for carrying forward the loss. Once loss is determined in the return file u/s.139(3), the assessee becomes eligible for set off against the income of the subsequent years irrespective of the fact whether the returns of such later years are filed u/s.139(1) or not. Sec. 80 read with sec. 139(3) requires the submission of return for loss before the due date.
ACIT Vs M/s Skylark Build (ITAT Mumbai)- Approach adopted by the Assessing Officer for assessing the income from TDR independently without deducting the expenses incurred is not justified. The assessee has been following project completion method which is an accepted method of accounting in construction business and also recommended as per accounting standard AS-7 of ICAI. Therefore, in such cases the income from the project has to be computed in the year of completion.
Systematic Exports Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – S. 80-IA (9) cannot be interpreted to mean that s. 80-IA deduction has to be reduced for computing s. 80HHC deduction. S. 80-IA (9) inserted w. e. f. 1.4.1989 provides that where any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking is claimed and allowed under s. 80-IA for any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of Chapter VI-A (C) and shall in no case exceed the profits and gains of such eligible business. The Court had to consider whether the deduction allowed u/s 80-IA had to be reduced from the profits for computing deduction u/s 80HHC. HELD dissenting from Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49 (Che)(SB), Hindustan Mint & Agro Products 119 ITD 107 (Del) (SB), Great Eastern Exports (Del) & Olam Exports (India) Ltd 184 TM 373 (Ker) & deciding in favour of the assessee
Saif Ali Khan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -With regard to the deduction of Society charges, we find that it has also been disallowed by the AO on the ground that since a flat amount of 30% of annual value is allowed, no other deduction is allowable. However, we find that sec. 24(a) reads as under B
JCIT Vs M/s Videocon Industries (ITAT Mumbai) – It is seen on perusal of the assessment records of assessment year 1999-2000 that the loss on sale of shares on SMS Pharmaceuticals has been declared as long term capital loss. This shows that the transaction in respect of the purchase and sale of shares of SMS Pharmaceuticals are nothing but transfer of capital asset and not part of the business of the assessee company. This fact is evident from the assessment records of previous assessment years wherein the shares have been shown as investments. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee company that the said loss of Rs.95,00,000/- should be allowed as a business loss and thereby writing it off as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowable as the conditions laid down by section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied by the assessee company .
ACIT Vs M/s P P Overseas (ITAT Mumbai) – Statutory liabilities such as customs duty, DEPB licence etc. which is actually the liability of the assessee and the receipt for the payment is issued by the concerned authority only in the name of the assessee. The C & F agents merely collected the payments from the assessee for payment to the concerned authorities. Such payments cannot be considered to be covered by section 194C as they are not for any work of the nature mentioned in Explanation III.
These cross appeals are directed against separate orders of the CIT(A) relating to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively. The appeals arise out of the assessments made under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. As they involve some common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
P A Chacko Muthalaly Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- If the approvals of the technical services have not been granted, obviously then assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80RRA. The Tribunal cannot go beyond its scope to hold that CBDT was not correct in refusing the permission for which assessee could have taken appropriate steps before the Honourable High Court. In the light of this discussion we are of the view that assessee is not entitle for deduction u/s.80 RRA.
Mitsutor Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The assessee was owner of the premises in which it was carrying on business. The assessee paid maintenance charges to the society of Apartment Owners. According to the AO the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the payment of maintenance charges to the society as the payment by the assessee to the society was in the nature of contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 194C was applicable.
