Law is settled- If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible
The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred the following questions in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 for the consideration of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, from the Tribunal’s order dt. 18th August 1981, and 20th August 1983, the later being question on the ground which was raised but through oversight not decided in the earlier order by the Tribunal.
The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : Whether notional interest on interest-free deposit received by the assessee against letting of property could be taken into account in cases falling under section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) In other words, whether notional interest would form part of actual rent received or receivable under section 23(1)(b) ?
In our opinion, the view which we are taking is also fortified by the proviso to s. 119 of the Act which specifically provides that the Board cannot issue instructions to the IT authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner as well as not to interfere with the discretion of the CIT(A) in exercise of his appellate functions.
The High Court relying on Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and following the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of C.I.T., U.P. v. Wheeler Club Limited {(1963) 49 ITR 52} and some observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T., Delhi-II v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. (155 ITR 373)
Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Ashok Desai, Shri V. Gauri Shankar, Dr. D.P. Pal, Shri Joseph Vellapally, Shri K.N. Shukla, Shri Pallav Shishodia, Shri A.P. Medh, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Shri B.K. Prasad, Shri S.N. Terdol, Shri S. Rajappa, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Shri N.L. Garg, Shri C.V. Subba Rao, Shri Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Shri S.K. Dwivedi, Shri Tarun Gulati
The appellant-assessee is a private limited company. During the assessment year 1981-82 (accounting year ending on March 31, 1981), the assessee had purchased for the use of its staff seven low income group houses from the Housing Board. The assessee had made part payments and was in turn made allotment of the houses followed by delivery of possession
Common questions involved in these appeals are whether the job rendered by a photographer in taking photographs, developing and printing films would amount to a works contract as contemplated under Article 366(2A)(b) of the Constitution read with Section 2(n) of the M.P.General Sales Tax for the purpose of levy of sales tax on business turnover of the photographers.
Once satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings against the assessee under section 158BD was furnished to assessee, the entire grievance of assessee were disposed off and as per AO, in any case incriminating documents and undisclosed assets belonging to assessee were found and seized during search operations conducted by Revenue on Mr. M and hence proceedings initiated against assessee under section 158BD were valid.
Answers given by the High Court that (i) the assessee who made the payments to the three non-residents was under obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act in respect of the sums paid to them under the contracts entered into; and (ii) the obligation of the respondent-assessee to deduct tax under Section 195 is limited only to appropriate proportion of income chargeable under the Act, are correct.
