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.
The entire focus in the present appeal is to decide whether the returns filed by the assessee were valid or invalid or defective. Whereas the AO, on observing that the return was not properly verified in as much as it was not signed by the right person, declared it to be invalid and non-est. He further intimated the assessee vide para 5 of his communication dated 11.1.2000 that the act of wrong verification is not a rectifiable defect u/s 139(9) which provides that removal of any defect of a valid return of income.
The assessee, an employee of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) India, received from J&J, USA, on 12.7.1989 a “cashless” option to buy 2500 shares at the then prevailing market price of $ 57.88 per share. The options were exercisable in installments over 10 years starting 11.7.1991. On 13.8.1992 (AY 1993-94), the assessee ‘sold’ the options and made a gain of Rs. 5,44,925
We have the rival submissions and perused the records. During the year under consideration the assessee society had claimed as exempt a sum or Rs. 10.00 Lakhs received on account of damages for wrongful proceedings against the society taken up before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society. Mr. Manojkumar Goswami & Mrs. Shashi Goswami
The revision u/s. 263 is not like the reopening of the assessment where once the assessment is reopened entire assessment is open before the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered in accordance with law. In the revision proceedings, the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show cause notice.
The provisions of the section contemplate to rectify any mistake apparent from record and non-consideration of any argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment and the same cannot be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497,502 (Bom).
Section 32 of the Income Tax Act allows depreciation on both tangible and intangible assets and clause [ii] thereof enumerates the intangible assets on which depreciation is allowable. The assets which are included in the definition of `intangible assets’ given in clause [ii] are know-how, patents, copy rights, trademarks, licenses, franchises etc.,
Section 10 provides for the incomes which do not form part of total income, and cl.[i] of sub-sec.[14] of sec. 10 provides that any such special allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of a perquisite within the meaning of clause [2] of sec. 17, specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties of an office or employment of profit, to t
The ownership issue was discussed in the assessment order and in his opinion the deduction u/s 33AC is allowed keeping the intention of generating the internal resources to augment their fleet and the contents of Circular of the Board dated 13-2-1990 is the basis for the same. On the contrary, the impugned order does not refer to this issue.
Admittedly, the assessee company was dealing in Cement and also engaged in the business of dealing in shares. There is no dispute over the fact that the assessee had taken delivery of shares before selling them. The assessee company had claimed set off of unabsorbed speculation loss relating to assessment year 1995-96 and 1997-98 carried forward in the current assessment year 2003-04.
