Upto 31/3/2005 (subject to fulfilling other conditions), deduction under Section 80IB(10) is allowable to housing projects approved by the local authority having residential units with commercial user to the extent permitted under DC Rules/ Regulations framed by the respective local authority.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the decision in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II Vs. Super Syncotex (India Ltd.)[2014 301 ELT 273 (S.C.)], held that after July 1, 2000, Sales tax portion collected but not paid to State Government on account of incentive scheme will form part of the transaction value of excisable goods and observed that:
Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax’ [1964 (5) SCR 807]. Whether a particular letting is business has to be decided in the circumstances of each case. It would not be the doing of a business if it was exploitation of his property by an owner.
The income derived by the company from shops and stalls is income received from property and falls under the specific head described in section 9. The character of that income is not altered because it is received by a company formed within object of developing and setting up markets.
In exercising legislative power, the legislature by mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or override a judicial decision. It can render judicial decision ineffective by enacting valid law on the topic within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectively.
The question which arises for consideration in the present appeals is the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendment to Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court have held that the retrospective effect given
n was judicially held in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT (2000) 6 SCC 645 that if a business liability has arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed even if such a liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.
The Supreme Court was considering an issue as to whether income derived from a building can be said to be used for charitable purpose by running of a free medical aid to the needy and poor in the context of tax exemption under Municipal laws.
Where an educational institution carries on the activity of education primarily for educating persons, the fact that it makes a surplus does not lead to the conclusion that it ceases to exist solely for educational purposes and becomes an institution for the purpose of making profit.
The purported classification only on the basis of language without anything more and in particular having regard to the difference in the rate of tax, in our opinion is ex-facie arbitrary. The burden was, therefore, on the State to show that the imposition was justified.
