Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Export oriented undertaking – Assessment year 2003-04 – Assessee-company was engaged in business of contract research and in providing of laboratory facility to its parent company in USA – It had claimed exemption under section 10B – Assessing Officer observed that assessee was not manufacturing or exporting anything, as it was simply providing services of laboratory
Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Appellate Tribunal – Powers of – Assessment year 1996-97 -Whether though Tribunal is not akin to a Court but functions discharged by it are similar to a Court, and, hence, in addition to its expressed statutory powers it has got inherent power to pass such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice – Held, yes –
As the facts indicate the holding company has advanced funds to the assessee company in 1998 which was received as share application money, later on transferred to unsecured loan. The amounts were utilised in investments and the incomes thereon were offered under the head ‘capital gains’ and not as ‘business income’.
word `property’ has been used by the legislature in a wider sense so as to include more than one house. However, the right to compute the ALV at nil in respect of self occupied property is restricted to one house even thought he property owned by the assessee may consist of more than one house.
The expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of payments to the retiring partners is only an application of its income, which is on capital account and not allowable as a deduction.
It is difficult to conceive that items like carpet etc., would fall in the category of items which are considered in the case of Madras Auto Service (supra). In particular, the assessee has not placed any material, either before the tax authorities or before us to show that the lump-sum payment in the form of renovation expenses has benefited the assessee in the form of reduction in the revenue expenditure over a period of years by virtue of low rentals or otherwise.
In our-view, the receipts do satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 80R that the services are rendered in his capacity as a teacher or research worker in such Institution, Association of Body. The amounts are not his professional receipts as he has no permission to practise in a foreign country.
The claim of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied merely based on the flimsy grounds that the assessee serves alcohol to the members and their friends in the club. Serving alcohol is part and parcel of the activities of any club and it is an integral part of the activities of the club.
The dispute raised in this appeal is whether F & O transaction can be considered as speculative transaction or not. The speculative transactions have been defined in section 43(5) as transactions in which contract for purchase or sale of any commodity including stock of shares is periodically and ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of commodity or scrips.
PICK-UP and drop transport facility provided by employers is not a perquisite and hence not liable to tax, according to a recent ruling by a tax tribunal. In a decision that has implications for the sectors such as BPO and IT, the Mumbai Income-Tax Apellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that companies providing such a facility were not liable to deduct tax on the expenditure incurred on it.
