The Taxpayer incurred interest expenditure on the funds borrowed for investing in shares of a company, with a view to acquire controlling interest. The ITAT held that the interest expenditure incurred is not allowable under Section 57(iii)(Section) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), since it is not incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of earning dividend income.
Taxpayers in the infrastructure sector are often engaged in the execution of construction activities, which form a minor portion of a contract for the development of an infrastructure facility. This ruling provides guidance on whether a contactor simplicitor would be entitled to tax holiday under the ITL, in respect of the construction activities carried out by it. This ruling makes it clear that tax holiday would be denied to a person who merely executes any works contract/construction activity but does not own the infrastructure developed by it. The ruling also holds that the person who does not undertake development of the entire facility but develops only part of it would not be entitled to tax holiday benefit.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Special Bench (SB) of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [ITA No. 7315/Mum/2007] in the case of DCIT vs. Manjula Shah (Taxpayer) which held that, in the case of gifted capital asset, indexation benefit is available to a donee from the year of its acquisition by the previous owner. The SB adopted a purposive construction of the definition of ‘Indexed Cost of Acquisition’ (ICOA) by looking at the scheme of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), which seeks to grant the benefit of cost and holding period of the previous owner to the donee.
While the statute is to be interpreted on the basis of the; plain language or terms of the sections need for interpretation when the words of the statute are ambivalent and do not manifest the intention of the Legislature. As explained above the interpretation canvassed by the assessee will lead to unintended results if the purpose for which the section is introduced is kept in mind. Therefore in our option a purposive approach has to be adopted in interpreting the provisions of sec 80 RR.
I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. The first issue, in my view, to be addressed in this case is as to the determination of annual letting value of the house property in accordance with the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Once that issue is decided, then it will be easy to decide the second issue as to whether the earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case was necessarily to be followed or not.
The ITAT held that for the computation of MAT, profits disclosed as per the audited accounts should be adopted, provided the accounts are prepared in the prescribed format. If the accounts are not so prepared, the Tax Authority may substitute the amount declared as per the Profit and Loss Account (P&L) with the appropriate amount, regardless of the fact that the accounts are certified as complying with the prescribed format by auditors.
Tribunal has got the power of rectifying a mistake which is apparent from the record itself and even an error of judgment is outside the ambit of section 254(2) of the Act. The oft-quoted judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in CIT v. Ramesh Chand Modi [2001] 249 ITR 323[2] distinguishing the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramesh Electric & Traaing Co. (supra) needs to be examined.
We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the amount of liability in question in respect of TISCO written back by the assessee company in its accounts was treated by the authorities below as its income by applying the provisions of section 41(1). There is no dispute that the such liability represented the trading liability of the assessee and as declared by the assessee itself in the return of income, there was remission or recession of the said liability during the year under consideration. The said liability accordingly was writ
The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that in this case interest from deposit was offered as business income and was also assessed as business income and therefore, automatically once it is assessed as business income then the same becomes eligible for deduction u/s.10B.
There is no dispute about the fact so far as M/s. SCML is concerned, it is a foreign company which is operating the Cruises in the international waters. The said company has entered into the agreement with the assessee company and as per the terms of the agreement,
