The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that in this case interest from deposit was offered as business income and was also assessed as business income and therefore, automatically once it is assessed as business income then the same becomes eligible for deduction u/s.10B.
In the instant case, the deductee has already discharged tax liability with interest payable under Section 201(1)(a) of the Act. As such no further interest can be claimed by the revenue from the respondents either under Section 234A or 234B or 234C of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal for the reasons stated cannot be faulted.
It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that unless a particular asset is used for the purpose of business or provision, depreciation is not allowed. No doubt, as per Section 32(1) of the Act, in order to be entitled to claim depreciation, the asset is to be owned by the assessee and it is also to be used for the purpose of business or profession. However, the expression “used for the purpose of business” when applied to block asset would mean use of block asset and not any specific building machinery, plant or furniture in the said block asset as individual assets have lost their identity after becoming inseparable part of the block asset. That is the only manner in which various provisions can be harmonized.
There is no dispute about the fact so far as M/s. SCML is concerned, it is a foreign company which is operating the Cruises in the international waters. The said company has entered into the agreement with the assessee company and as per the terms of the agreement,
From the nature of activities being pursued by the petitioners, particularly as contained in the ‘memorandum of association’ extracted by the respondent in the statement filed in WP(C) 6899/2009 (stated as more or Jess similar in the other case as well), it is very much evident that the derivation of income by the petitioner cannot be held as merely the income from property, so as to oust the involvement of ‘trade, commerce or business’ or any service in connection with trade commerce or business as contemplated under the statute, which requires to be exempted and appreciated in detail by the departmen
It will also be relevant to mention that in the Memorandum explaining the provisions relating to direct taxes in the Finance Act, the above clause has been described under the head `Measures to plug revenue leakages’ and the relevant portion of Memorandum Explaining the Provisions Relating to Direct Taxes is reproduced below:-
The question is whether the terms of the contract as given above is for supply of labourers or is for doing specific item of work. If it is for performance of specified items of work, the same would not be covered by the definition of service since the service covers manpower recruitment or supply.
Here we summarised the ruling of the Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2009-TIOL-666-ITAT-BANG] in the case of Bovis Lend Lease (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the taxability of payments towards reimbursement of cost forservices provided by a group entity. The ITAT held that such payments
Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Techno Shares & Shares Limited and Various other Stock Broking Houses (ITA no. 971 of 2006 and 218 of 2007) held that the depreciation cannot be granted on Bombay Stock Exchange Membership Card (BSE card) acquired on or after 1 April 1998 either by nomination or directly through the stock exchange.
The Bombay High Court ruled that once the taxpayer’s submissions with respect to section 14A was accepted by a tax officer, the Tribunal cannot send back the same matter for the tax officer’s re¬consideration. Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of Topstar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (2009-TIOL-458-HC-MUM-IT) has held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) was not justified in sending back the matter to Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the applicability of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) after applying the ratio of the decision in the case of ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd [2008] 312 ITR (SB) (Mum) since the submissions made by the taxpayer in this regard was accepted by the tax officer during the assessment proceedings.
