The Tribunal had to consider whether an assessee liable to pay Minimum Alternate Tax u/s 115JA was also liable to pay interest u/ss 234B & 234C for short-fall in payment of advance tax. The Judicial Member followed the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Snowcem India Ltd 313 ITR 170 and held that interest u/ss 234B and 234C could not be levied when book profits was computed u/s 115JA.
Insofar as Appeal No. 64/2009 is concerned relating to the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Tribunal rejecting the rectification application on the ground of limitation, even assuming, that it is a question of law, there is no error in the finding on the question of law also and therefore there is no way of keeping this appeal pending on the board of this Court for further examination, the order of the Tribunal is fully in consonance of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Hongo India (P) Ltd’s case (supra) the appeal inevitably has to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
The assessee, a share broker, purchased shares on behalf of its client and paid for them. The brokerage on the said transaction was offered to tax. As the client did not pay for the shares, the assessee wrote off the amount due and claimed the same as a bad debt u/s 36 (1) (vii). The AO rejected the claim on the ground that as the said “debt” had not “been taken into account in computing the income”,
The Commissioner is empowered to call for such further documents or information or calls such enquiries in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the institution. If the Commissioner is satisfied that the condition laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (5) of section 80G are fulfilled, he shall record such satisfaction and grant approval.
In fact, it is not disputed that the assessee company takes benefit of additional depreciation on account of revaluation of the fixed assets by increasing the revaluation reserve in the relevant assessment year 2000-2001 and consequently, the same definitely has the effect of reducing the net profit for the said Assessment Year.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the long term capital gain earned by the assessee is included in the net profit determined as per P&L account prepared as per Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. In other words, it is not the case of die assessee that the capital gain earned by the assessee was not included in the net profit determined as per P&L account of the assessee prepared under the Companies Act.
Even without going to all the strict interpretation, even otherwise on receipt of advance as per the agreement, if the assessee deposited the amount as required us 54EC. he cannot be treated as a defaulter for the same.
It is clear from plethora of authorities where after considering provisions of section 1l(l)(a) that so for as aforesaid provision is concerned, no distinction is made between charitable and religious purposes. A charitable institution can have religious purposes; whereas a religious institution may be partly charitable. Most of the decisions were given under 1961 Act.
When a part of the surrender can be accepted on proper explanation the rest can also be allowed to be explained. The assessee’s claim that balance was from cash withdrawals from cash book has to be tested on the facts appearing in the case. For that test it would be necessary that cash book be examined. Both members agree to that effect – the Accountant Member stating that if cash is found withdrawn it should be excepted whereas the Judicial Member directs to verify as to how the cash was generated in the cash book. In my opinion the later course appear to be more reasonable as the cash availability is to be examined with reference to entries made therein.
he assessee, a civil contractor, claimed deduction u/s 80-IA (4) in respect of the profits from infrastructure projects executed by it. The lower authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was a mere contractor and not a developer. On appeal, the Judicial Member upheld the claim on the ground that the assessee was a developer. The Accountant Member dissented and after taking note of the Explanation to s. 80-IA then proposed to be inserted by the Finance Bill 2007 w.r.e.f 1.4.2000, rejected the claim.
