This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Panatone Finvest Ltd.(Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-717-ITAT-MUM]. 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.
The use of word developing’ in juxtaposition to infrastructure facility in section 80-1A(4) indicates that what is eligible for deduction under this sub-section is the profits and gains derived from the development of infrastructure facility and not something de hors it; so in order to be eligible for deduction the development should be that of the infrastructure facility as a whole and not a particular part of it; it may be possible that some part of development work is assigned by the developer to some contractor for doing it on his behalf; that will not put the doer of such work into the shoes of a developer; therefore, a mere contractor cannot be conferred with the benefit as provided in section 80-IA.
In respect of properties where restriction under Rent Control Act is not applicable, the annual letting value has got to be determined after taking into consideration various factors and the standard rent or Municipal valuation may be adjusted after taking into account such factors.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2009-TIOL-707-ITAT-MUM] in the case of Cipla Investments Ltd. (Taxpayer) on taxability of waiver of loan. The ITAT held that since the loan received was on capital account, its subsequent waiver too was on capital account. Hence, the loan waived was not liable to be taxed as profits and gains from its business (business income) under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL). The ITAT also held that waiver would not be taxable as business income if a taxpayer was not allowed deduction of the loan amount earlier.
A partnership firm is a separate entity than that of its partners under the Income-tax Act and therefore, partners vis-à-vis partnership firm would stand on the same footing of shareholders vis-à-vis company; accordingly , income charged in the hands of partnership firm cannot be treated as being a non-exempt income in the hands of a partner of such firm and, therefore, provisions of section 14A would be applicable in computing the total income of such partner in respect of his share in the profits of such firm.
The rule of construction of a charging section is that before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section. No one can be taxed by implication. A charging section has to be construed strictly. If a person has not been brought within the ambit of the charging section by clear words, he cannot be taxed at all.
he assessee, a civil contractor, claimed deduction u/s 80-IA (4) in respect of the profits from infrastructure projects executed by it. The lower authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was a mere contractor and not a developer. On appeal, the Judicial Member upheld the claim on the ground that the assessee was a developer. The Accountant Member dissented and after taking note of the Explanation to s. 80-IA then proposed to be inserted by the Finance Bill 2007 w.r.e.f 1.4.2000, rejected the claim.
The assessee transferred a capital asset which was received by her by way of gift on 1.2.2003. The previous owner had acquired the capital asset on 29.1.1993. In computing capital gains, the assessee claimed that the indexed cost of acquisition had to be worked out by taking the date of acquisition by the previous owner.
The assessee, a partner in a firm, received ‘share of profit’ and ‘salary’ from the firm. While the ‘share of profit’ was exempt u/s 10(2A), the ‘salary’ was taxable as business income u/s 28 (v). The assessee claimed deduction for business expenditure incurred by him. The AO held that as the assessee had exempt income, s. 14A applied and a part of the expenditure had to be disallowed.
As can be seen from the above the adjustment made by the assessee is according to the provisions of the Act. Since both the industrial galas fall within the block the WDV is increased by the actual cost of the asset falling within the block and reduced by the amount payable in respect of the asset sold. Accordingly we do not find any mistake in assessee’s working of the block of assets which is according to the provisions of section 43(6)(c). The A.O.’s action in denying the inclusion of asset within the block is on the condition that the asset was not put to use.
