In the present case we find that the petitioner had changed his registered office w.e.f. 4th November, 1989 from first floor and 6376 Naya Bans Delhi to Y-192, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi, and thereafter w.ef. 3rd October, 2000 from Y-92 Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi to Room No.9, Y-3C, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi. The principal place of business is at Agra, where he has a floor mill.
First is the issue of entertainment expenditure. The stand of the assessee is that the provisions of FBT can be invoked in respect of expenses which are incurred on employees or their family members but in the present case, as mentioned on page No.5 of the paper book, the entertainment expenses have been incurred for guests of the company, which has not been disputed by the Revenue. So same are not liable to be subjected to provisions of section 115WB(2) of the Act.
As submitted by the DR if it is an expenditure incurred in respect of its business, it should have been claimed during the relevant assessment year and if it is a debt it should have been advanced in respect of trade or business of the assessee and it should have gone to computation of income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year or represents money lent in ordinary course of business.
Bottling plant wherein the LPG is filled in the cylinders for domestic and non-domestic kitchen use involves various specialized process and therefore, it is an activity of manufacture/production. Accordingly, the assessee’s claim for deduction has to be allowed.
It was argued by the appellants that the covenants in the non-compete agreement provide for both non-compete obligations as well as an obligation to maintain confidentiality. According to them, it is necessary and advisable to do so as a non-compete obligation without a corresponding obligation to maintain confidentiality, would render any non-compete agreement ineffective
Installing projects of high technical equipment is nothing but Modernisation of a factory and as per Cenvat credit Rules, 2004, services used in relation to modernisation are eligible for Cenvat credit.
There is also force in the submissions of the counsel for the assessee that prior to introduction of S. 56(2)(vii) by the Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f. 1st Oct., 2009, gifts in kind were outside the purview of s. 56(2)(v) or (vi).
Rule 2BA is in the form of guidelines for the purpose of section 10(10C), which relates to taxation of income/amount received by an employee under VRS scheme. The said rule does not deal with the expenditure incurred by the employer when the assessee makes payment under the VRS scheme formulated by them.
It is stated by them that insofar as the revamping the system and giving better assistance to the court is concerned, all necessary action as they would take has been taken. We would thus naturally expect that now there would no lack of proper assistance to the court.
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.
