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,
The assessee co-op housing society gave permission to a developer to construct 2 floors and 8 flats on the building belonging to the society by using the TDR / FSI available to the developer. In consideration, the developer paid Rs. 26 lakhs to the assessee and Rs. 66 lakhs to its members aggregating Rs. 92 lakhs. The AO took the view that the assessee had relinquished its right “to load TDR and construct additional floors” and as there was no cost of acquisition, the entire consideration of Rs. 26 L was assessable as long-term capital gains. On appeal, the CIT (A) took the view that even the amounts received by the Members were assessable in the assessee’s hands.
The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Mr. Bomi S. Billimoria vs. A.C Cir 23(1), Mumbai (ITA No.2120/Mum/1998) held that in case no payment has been made for acquiring shares under Employee Stock Option Plan, the gain on sale of said shares should not be liable to capital gains tax. As the date of exercise of options and date of sale is same and further, there is no difference between the sale price and the deemed cost of acquisition, in any case, it is not short term capital gains.
