Expl. (baa) to S. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean the profits under the head “profits and gains” as reduced by 90% of the sum referred to in s. 28 (iiid). The 2nd & 3rd Provisos to s. 80HHC (3) provide that the profits computed there under shall be increased by the said 90% amount computed in the proportion of export turnover
The assessee had borrowed funds for the purpose of investing in shares. The shares were held for capital purposes as well as for investment purposes. In AY 2004-2005, the assessee did not receive any dividend on the said shares and so there was no exempt income. The Special Bench had to consider whether the interest expenditure
4.1 The Assessing Officer from the details filed noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.3,24,91,003/- as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee vide letter dated 15th December, 2005 submitted that a new call center was in the process of being completed, but was not completed during the year.
In our opinion, once Section 140 of the Act mandates that the return has to be signed in the case of a company by the Managing Director and where Managing Director is not available by any Director thereof, it is not possible to hold that the signing of the return by the Company Secretary is merely an irregularity. When the law provides for a particular thing to be done in particular manner, it must be so
In this case it is not disputed that the assessee is a firm of Solicitors & Advocates. It would be necessary to first examine as to whether The Bombay High Court (Original Side Rules are applicable in the case of the solicitors and then to consider the obligations of the Solicitor firm under the said Rules, if found applicable. For this purpose, it will be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manilal Kher Ambalal and Co. (supra). In this case the Hon’ble High Court, while examining the method of accounting followed by the appellant firm, has stated as under: –
1. This Special Bench was constituted on the recommendation of the regular Bench which was hearing above appeals. The controversy relates to the computation of deduction u/s 80HHC to an assessee (industrial undertaking) after it has been allowed deduction u/s 80-IB of the Income Tax Act. In other words, the effect of provision of Section 80-IA(9) introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 is to be seen.
It was contended by the assessee that their agricultural land is situated in the rural area outside the municipal limit and hence does not fall within the ambit of provisions of s. 2(14) of the Act and not liable to tax in the assessee’s hand. But the AO has not accepted the contention of the assessee and treated the sale consideration of assessee’s share as undisclosed income of the asses see and added to the income of the assessee.
The assessee incurred expenditure on issue of convertible debentures. The department claimed that convertible debentures were akin to shares and that in line with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Brooke Bond 225 ITR 798 the expenditure was capital in nature. HELD rejecting the claim that:
Chapter XIX-A is a complete Code in itself as regards settlement of cases for having provided a complete mechanism other than procedure provided under the IT Act. Legislature conferred all powers upon Settlement Commission being vested in IT authority under the Act as provided U/s 245-F and what is being decided
Therefore, we hold that it is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under Section 4 of the Income Tax Act. Section 194-A of the Act has no application for the purpose of this case as it encompasses deduction of the income at the source. However the appellants are entitled to spread over the income for the period for which payment came to be made so as to compute the income for assessing tax for the relevant accounting year.”
