We find from the records that the assessee has computed his interest income arising on the difference between purchase price of the debenture and redemption price after six years and calculated the income on amortization basis.
We see no error in the observation made by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgement that once limitation period of four years provided under Section 147/149(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [for short, `the Act’] expires then the question of reopening by the Department does not arise.
On going through the records, we find that an important query was raised by the Department as to whether these two donors had the financial capacity to make the gift(s) in favour of the assessees herein. This query has not at all been answered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’, for short].
A short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals is, whether texturing and twisting of polyester yarn amount to ‘manufacture’ for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This question has been squarely answered by this Court in the case of CIT v. Emptee Poly-Yarn (P.) Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 188.
It is now well settled that in determining whether a receipt is liable to be taxed, the taxing authorities cannot ignore the legal character of the transaction which is the source of the receipt. The taxing authorities are bound to determine the true legal character of the transaction.
On a plain reading of the statutory provisions of section 54, it is clear that an agreement for sale or an agreement to sell itself does not create any interest or charge in such property. Mulla on ‘Transfer of Property Act’ clearly states that section 54 enacts that an agreement for the sale of land does not itself create an interest in land.
Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is allowable independently and irrespective of provisions for bad and doubtful debts created by the assessee in relation to the advances of the rural branches, subject to the limitation that an amount should not be deducted twice under section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia ).
A loan taken or capital borrowed is, by itself, not a capital asset, nor does it give an advantage of an enduring nature; as long as a loan is taken or capital is borrowed for the purpose of business, the assessee is entitled to claim interest paid thereon as deduction under section 36(1)(iii);
High Court was justified in affirming the decision of the Tribunal that the income earned by the Assessee which was derived from underwriting the issue of bonds and investments in PSEB Bonds was in the nature of income from banking business and hence qualified for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The short point involved in the present case is whether levy of interest under Section 234A/234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory or not. At one point of time there was a doubt on the nature of interest payable by the assessee under Section 234A/234B of the Act. That controversy stood finally settled by a Five-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, [2001] 252 ITR 1.
