We are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) because on account of violation of conditions prescribed under clause (ia) the implication u/s.40(a) would be that the said amount will not be deducted in computing income chargeable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’. The same will form part of profits and gains of business or profession of the assessee which could be included along with income under all the other heads in the assessee’s gross total income.
Assessee was granted right of lifting water from said well which is independent right given by the State Government for the rent of Rs. one per year. There is also nothing to suggest that right of lifting of water was acquired by assessee by incurring any cost. Such right is not covered by the provisions of section 55(2). Therefore, no capital gain could be worked out, since provisions of section 45(1) read with section 48(1) are not applicable in respect of payment made to assessee in lieu of surrendering the right to lift the water from the well. Accordingly, capital gain as worked out by the Assessing Officer is not justified.
Assessee was held entitled for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in case there was enhanced income on account of statutory disallowance u/s.43B, 40(a)(ia) and 36(1)(va), etc. In the instant case nature of receipts on credit side of Profit and Loss Account for eligible housing projects u/s.80IB(10) was the same and disallowance of expenditure on the debit side would only result into enhancement of net profit. Accordingly, the assessee’s claim was liable to be allowed in view of the ratio of the decisions cited (supra). As stated above, assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) pertaining to its Cosmos project. The Assessing Officer has held in assessment order that sum of claim u/s. 80IB(10) was allowable to assessee for its Heliconia project. Thus, if any disallowance u/s.43B, 40(a)(ia) or 36(10(va) etc., relate to Heliconia project that only can be considered for claim u/s. 80IB(10) and corresponding enhanced income.
The mandate of Sec. 194C is that the relationship of the person paying any sum to the person carrying out any work including the supply of labour should be in he nature of the principal to contractor. After anxiously examining the provisions of Maharashtra Mathadi Act and Scheme framed under it, we are of the opinion that there is no contractual relationship as a principal and contractor between these assessees and Mathadi Board,
The Assessing Officer has observed that the bank has claimed the set off of carried forward losses of earlier years of Rs. 2,39,37,185/-. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, provisions of section 14A are applicable. The Assessing Officer has observed that up to A.Y. 2006-07, income of cooperative bank was wholly exempt u/s.80P and hence, loss was incurred because of expenditure for earning the wholly exempt income and hence, no benefit of set off can be given. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance of entire loss of Rs. 2,39,37,185/-.
Assessee is a firm engaged in business of builder and promoter. The issue before us is regarding allowability of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act on partially complete project. The Assessing Officer has denied the deduction on the ground that project was not complete within the stipulated time. There is no dispute with regard to other conditions laid u/s.80IB(10) of the Act,
The case of the assessee is that the statement/admission was made under the mistaken belief of law that Rs. 50 lakhs represents the sale value of stock found short was undisclosed income of the assessee instead of the correct legal position that the gross profit on suppressed sale is the income of the assessee.
Ostensibly, while denying the assessee’s claim of carried forward unabsorbed loss/depreciation assessed under the normal provisions of the Act, the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the basis that section 10A of the Act provides an exemption and, therefore, loss suffered in such unit is not allowed to be set off or carried forward for further set off against other normal business income.
According to us for charging capital gains, the assets must have been acquired by incurring cost. In the instant case, the assessee has not incurred any cost for the acquisition of asset because the same was allotted to the assessee’s father by Government of India being refugee from Pakistan at relevant point of time.
Decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Homi K. Bhabha Vs. ITO was brought to our notice by the learned DR wherein it was held that Portfolio Management Scheme fees is not deductible against capital gains. The decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of KRA Holding & Trading was not followed by the Mumbai Bench in the above cited decision.
