Assessee, a US company, entered into agreements with various customers in India for rendering software services – Assessing Officer held that payments received by assessee from sale of software and provision of maintenance and other support services to customers in India
Next ground of appeal is about disallowance of interest paid by the assessee to HO amounting to Rs.8.57Crores.During the assessment proceedings, AO found that interest of Rs.8,56,15, 525/- was paid by the assessee to HO on subordinate debts and term borrowing.
The assessee, a joint venture company, was awarded a project work. However the assessee did not execute the contract and the said work was done by one of its constituents namely SMS Infrastructure Limited (‘SIL’).
In the case of Commissioner Central Excise vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, it was held by Punjab and Haryana High Court that substantive benefits provided by a notification cannot be denied on account of procedural lapses by the assessee.
A plain reading of Section 10(23C) makes it clear that the legislature has categorised for deduction income of those institutions which ‘exist solely’ for philanthropic purpose with a further stipulation that they would exist ‘not for the purpose of profit’.
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 factual matrix of the present case is that there was a criminal case against the assessee with an allegation of custom duty evasion and he incurred impugned expenditure of legal fees for hiring lawyers to represent his criminal case before the Hon’ble High Court and Lower Courts to get the bail order.
The first and foremost issue to be decided is as to whether the area of projected terrace (open to sky) is liable to be included within the meaning of expression built-up area contained in clause (c) of section 80IB(10) of the Act.
Tribunal has held that in case the income is to be computed as per sub-section (1A) of section 11 of the Act, if the net consideration for transfer of capital asset of a charitable trust is utilized for acquiring new capital asset, then the whole of the capital gain is exempt.
