The assessee wrote off an amount as a “bad debt” in its accounts and claimed a deduction u/s 36 (1) (vii). The AO asked the assessee to furnish information as to the names and addresses of the debtors, copies of ledger accounts and efforts made to realize these dues. On failure by the assessee to furnish the information, the claim was disallowed on the ground that the onus to prove that the debt was a bad debt was on the assessee which had not been discharged.
The taxpayer was a banking company. In the current appeal, the Revenue’s grievance was that the CIT(A) had erred in directing that the written back ”provision of bad-debts” was not taxable as ”business income” especial y when a deduction of a sum was already al owed under Section 36(1) (vi a). The AO in the assessment order held that such write off of the provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowed as deduction in the previous years and therefore the current write back should be taxable. The CIT(A), while deciding the case before him, held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, an amount of liability written back cannot be taxed as income.
The taxpayer was a wholly owned subsidiary of Denso Thermal Systems, Italy. The taxpayer was engaged in the business of manufacturing certain automobile products and selling the same in India and abroad. For the impugned assessment year, the taxpayer claimed that the royalty paid to its parent company as revenue expenditure. After perusing the details called for, the AO, relying on the decision of CIT vs. Southern Switchgear Ltd. 148 ITR 272 (Mad) held 25% of the royalty claimed as capital expenditure and disallowed the same.
The applicant is a US-based manufacturer engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods and is also an R&D-based service provider. It entered a cost al ocation agreement with its India-based group company. The applicant raises invoices on the Indian group company for services rendered based on the formula given in the agreement. The question before the Authority for Advance Ruling was: “Whether payments made for availing services listed out in the agreement are taxable in India and if taxable whether it is liable to TDS under Section 195 of the Act?”
Whether the rate prescribed by the Agreement between the assessee(s) and the Federation(s) is a composite charge, as submitted by the assessee(s), or whether the said rate is exclusively for ginning and pressing de hors the godown rent
When hiring of trucks and payment thereof was not in consequence upon any written or oral agreement, the natural outcome is that the provisions of section 194C, as has been held in the decisions referred to herein before, were also not applicable to the assessee’s case
These four appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2004- 05 to 2007- 08 are directed against the common order of the CIT (A). Since an identical issue is involved in all these appeals preferred by the assessee, these are being disposed off with this consolidated order.
In the case of supply of manpower individuals are contractually employed by the manpower recruitment or supply agency. The agency agrees for use for the services of an individual, employed by him to another person for a consideration.
We have considered the rival submissions carefully in the light of the relevant material on record as well as the decision cited by the parties. After careful perusal of various authorities relied on either side would show that they are quite distinguishable because none of the case law deals with the training expenses. In these cases some principles have been laid down. We further find that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Ishikawajima- Harima Heavy industries Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax (supra) is not applicable because that decision
The assessee filed a revision petition u/s 264 in which it claimed that the subsidy received by it from the government was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in view of P.J. Chemicals Ltd 210 ITR 830 (SC). The Petition was allowed by the CIT.
