But now, we have to consider the alternative claim of the assessee, whether the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act, of donation made in lieu of appeal made by the GOG as the abovementioned amount was paid because Gujarat State was reeling under severe drought and one of the most important assets of the poor people of Gujarat i.e., cattle would be lost which would result in permanent loss to a large number of farmers and others, whose dependence on cattle were substantial. The company made payment to suppliers, who gave fodder directly to various cattle camps as directed by the GOG. The assessee-company paid this amount on the direction of GOG for keeping smooth relation with the gov
This article summarizes ruling of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of DCIT v Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-754- 1TAT-DEL]. The ITAT held that the conversion of business income earned in foreign currency into INR, in accordance with Rule 115 (Rule) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), is to be made by adopting the conversion rate prevailing at the end of the tax year. It also held that the Taxpayer, a company incorporated in Singapore and engaged in the business of hiring out drill-ship in India, is entitled to claim depreciation on the value of the drill-ship.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of M/s ONGC Videsh Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-758-ITAT-DEL] on the issue of allowability of depreciation on participatory right to carry out the hydrocarbon operations, acquired by the Taxpayer, pursuant to a Production Sharing Arrangement (PSA). The ITAT held that the participatory right acquired by the Taxpayer was in the nature of asset, in the form of ‘license’ i.e. license to have an access and to carry out exploration, development and production of hydrocarbon operations. Considering this, it was held that the participatory right is eligible for depreciation under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
The ITAT held that for the computation of MAT, profits disclosed as per the audited accounts should be adopted, provided the accounts are prepared in the prescribed format. If the accounts are not so prepared, the Tax Authority may substitute the amount declared as per the Profit and Loss Account (P&L) with the appropriate amount, regardless of the fact that the accounts are certified as complying with the prescribed format by auditors.
In a recent ruling Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Growth Avenue Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) v DCIT [ITA No. 3912/Del/2005] on the issue of inclusion of capital gains in book profits while computing Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), where such capital gains are not chargeable to tax under the normal provisions of the ITL. The ITAT held that any adjustments outside the scope of the MAT computation mechanism, under the ITL, is not permissible and since the exclusion of capital gains is not specifically provided therein, a taxpayer is not entitled to such an adjustment while computing book profits for the purpose of MAT.
Whether amendment to Section 43B (Section) of Income Tax Act,1961, enacted with effect from 1 April 2004, is retrospectively applicable? This amendment was introduced to rationalize the tax deduction of the employer’s contribution to provident fund, superannuation fund, gratuity fund and such other funds for the welfare of employees (social security contributions).
In the event of a reasonable doubt about the applicability of Chapter XVII-B, Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked, would be stretching our jurisdiction beyond the permissible limit which cannot be done. In as much as we have reached a conclusion that the object sought to be achieved while enacting Section 40(a)(ia) was for augmenting the provision of TDS, with which object we do not find any impermissibility or lack of constitutionality and hence there is no scope for applying the doctrine of Reading Down to the said provision.
For the purpose of Expenditure Tax Act, 1987 the convention center managed by a hotel is an extension of the hotel itself and therefore, rent collection from the convention center shall be eligible for the levy of expenditure tax.
Tribunal has got the power of rectifying a mistake which is apparent from the record itself and even an error of judgment is outside the ambit of section 254(2) of the Act. The oft-quoted judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in CIT v. Ramesh Chand Modi [2001] 249 ITR 323[2] distinguishing the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramesh Electric & Traaing Co. (supra) needs to be examined.
We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the amount of liability in question in respect of TISCO written back by the assessee company in its accounts was treated by the authorities below as its income by applying the provisions of section 41(1). There is no dispute that the such liability represented the trading liability of the assessee and as declared by the assessee itself in the return of income, there was remission or recession of the said liability during the year under consideration. The said liability accordingly was writ
