As rightly pointed out by Shri Pardiwalla, even a promise to render services at a future date would entitle the assessee for deduction u/s 80-O in view of the specific wordings in the section.
ACIT v. Prakash L. Shah – The exchange rate difference pertaining to the exports made in the earlier year shall be part of the export turnover of the year in which such export is made provided such sale proceeds of the eligible goods are realized in India within the period of six months from the end of the previous year or within such further period as allowed by the Competent Authority.
An assessee to whom the agreement applies has the option of being subjected to tax as per DTAA or the Income-tax Act 1961, which is more beneficial to it. When section 44D is read in juxtaposition to section 115A, it mandates for putting the amount of royalty and fees for technical services to tax at 20% as against 10% as provided by Article 12 of DTAA. The assessee being a person to whom the agreement applies, has rightly subjected itself to taxation at the reduced rate of 10% as per DTAA.
Avaya Global Connect vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee transferred its undertaking under a scheme of demerger which provided that neither the assessee nor its shareholders would receive any consideration from the transferee company as the value of the liabilities taken over were more than the value of the assets taken over and the assessee treated the difference between the said liabilities and assets as a capital reserve and the question arose whether such difference was assessable to tax
R. B. K. Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) -Even prior to the amendment to s. 43(5) by the Finance Act 2005 w.e.f 1.4.2006, dealings in Futures & Options and other derivatives products cannot be treated as speculative transactions as they are special kind of transactions, not involving purchase and sale of shares and consequently the loss arising therefrom cannot be treated as a speculation loss.
Nandlal M. Gandhi Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of Block Assessment passed by the Assessing Officer by contending that the impugned order was barred by the period of limitation prescribed under section 158BE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the said order was bad in law.
What is relevant is whether the unit in question is engaged in the production or manufacture of specified articles or things in its own right. It is not in dispute that the units in question in the assessee-company are engaged in the production of capsules and has also produced the capsules in the year under appeal. The assessee has been denied deduction on the sole ground that all the units are also producing capsules and are therefore part of the same undertaking.
ACIT vs Mahalaxmi Chemical Works The notice under s.148 was issued for the reason that interest paid was not allowable since funds taken on interest were not used for business purpose.During reassessment said interest was not disallowed, accepting the assessee’s explanation. The reassessment for that reason could not be held to be invalid since there was prima facie reason to believe at the time of issue of notice under s.148 that income had escaped assessment.
The assessment for AY 90-91 was reopened on the ground to verify whether the income from warehousing charges should be treated as income from business or income from house property. Ultimately after investigating the case in detail, the Assessing Officer himself arrived at a conclusion that charges on account of warehousing are business receipts and the reassessment was completed accordingly. Now, for these years under consideration the department had taken a different view, which in our considered opinion,
It is the legal owner (i.e. the assessee in the case before us) who is liable to the wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets licensed/leased by him for a term of less than twelve years as laid down in section 269UA(f). However, the legal owner shall not be liable to wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets leased by him for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act. It is in fact the person acquiring any rights (i.e., lessee) in or with respect to any building under a lease for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act who shall be deemed to be the owner thereof in terms of the provisions of section 4(8)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act.
