TAXMAN
|
Vol. 166, Part 2, for the week of January 12 – January 18, 2008
|
CONTENTS
statutes
q notifications
Income-tax Act
- Section 10(23) of
Income-tax Act, 1961 - Exemptions - Sports associations/institutions - Notified
sports associations/institutions
- Section 35(1)(iii) of Income-tax
Act, 1961 - Scientific research expenditure - Approved social science or
statistical research associations or institutions
- Section 80C(2)(xxii) of
Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction in respect of subscription to bonds -
Specified bonds
- Section 194A(3)(iii)(f)
of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Interest other than
“Interest on securities” - Notified institution
- Income-tax establishment -
Directorate of Income-tax, Human Resource Development
q order
Income-tax Act
- Order under section 119 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 - Extension of due date for filing returns of income for
all categories of assessees in certain cases
q press release
Saving matters
- NABARD Rural Bonds - Deduction
under section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961
q rules/amendment rules
Indian Post Office (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007
- Indian Post Office (Third
Amendment) Rules, 2007 - Insertion of rule 10E
Tax Reports
Table of cases
Bharat Krishak Samaj v. Dy. DIT (Delhi)
CIT v. Anupam Kapoor (Punj. & Har.)
CIT v. Ashoka Builders (P.) Ltd. (Delhi)
CIT v. Bakeman’s Home Products (Punj. & Har.)
CIT v. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.
(Mad.)
CIT v. Fancy International (Delhi)
CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (SC)
CIT v. Jayalakshmi (B.) (Mad.)
CIT v. Kwality Ice Cream (Delhi)
CIT v. Lucas T. V. S. Ltd. (SC)
CIT v. Max India Ltd. (SC)
CIT v. Milk Food Ltd. (Delhi)
CIT v. R.G. Scientific Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (Delhi)
CIT v. Rollatainers Ltd. (Delhi)
CIT v. Surya Industries Ltd. (Delhi)
CIT v. Vikas Electronics (International) (P.) Ltd. (Delhi)
CIT v. Vipin Batra (Delhi)
DIT v. Sir Sobha Singh Charitable Trust (Delhi)
Gupta (R.C.) v. CIT (Delhi)
H.T. Power Structure (P.) Ltd. v. R.P. Sharma (Guj.)
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi)
Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi)
Lipi International v. CIT (Bom.)
Subhash Chander Gupta v. ITO (Punj. & Har.)
Taneja (H.L.) v. CIT (MP)
subject index
Advertisement/Sales Promotion expenses
- Whether in view of decision of
Delhi High Court in CIT v. High Polymer Labs (P.) Ltd. [IT
Reference No. 34 of 1992, dated 5-7-2005], Tribunal was right in holding that
commission paid by assessee to agents/distributors, was not in nature of
expenditure on sales promotion under section 37(3B), for making a disallowance
under section 37(3A) - Held, yes - CIT v. Rollatainers Ltd. (Delhi)
Bad debts
- Assessment year 1995-96 - Two
Directors had, on behalf of assessee-company, made down payment of Rs. 9 lakhs
to one company ‘K’ for purchase of a premises for assessee - Later, they
resigned and transaction for said purchase could not be completed - Since ‘K’
refused to return money, after waiting for three years, on advice of its
auditors, assessee wrote off said amount as bad debt - Assessing Officer
disallowed claim - Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed appeal filed by assessee by
holding that since money was paid for purchase of a capital asset and after
purchase would have been shown in balance sheet as such, said sum constituted a
capital loss and not a business loss - Tribunal took view that since asset was
in fact not purchased and any hope of money being recovered was lost, said sum
constituted only a business loss and had to be allowed as such - Letter written
by assessee to Assessing Officer revealed that amount had been advanced to ‘K’
for purchase of a capital asset for assessee - Whether conclusion arrived at by
Tribunal that non-recovery of said sum was a business loss was contrary to
assessee’s letter which made position explicit that it was advanced for
purchase of a capital asset - Held, yes - Whether, therefore
Commissioner (Appeals) was justified - Held, yes - CIT v. R.G.
Scientific Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (Delhi)
Block assessment in search cases
Assessment of undisclosed income
- Assessee was engaged in manufacture
of mild steel galvanized iron wires - Wires were stacked in bundles and they
apparently run into thousands of bundles - Search party instead of actually
counting bundles and using machines/cranes for weighing each bundle, as it was
time consuming, estimated stock position which was higher than stock shown by
assessee in its books - Assessing Officer, accordingly made addition of alleged
excess stock - Whether since assessee could not be made to suffer consequences
of lethargy on part of officers of revenue, alleged excess stock calculated by
revenue was liable to be deleted - Held, yes - CIT v. Vikas
Electronics (International) (P.) Ltd. (Delhi)
Undisclosed income
- Whether in respect of a block
assessment, undisclosed income is required to be computed on basis of evidence
found during search or being directly relatable to evidence found during search
- Held, yes - A search and seizure operation was conducted at various
residential and business premises of assessee and during said search, books of
account of assessee were seized - Subsequent to search and with a view to
verify correctness of books, Deputy Director of Income-tax recorded statement
of one ‘V’ who admitted to have made purchases of some goods from assessee -
Subsequently, ‘V’ retracted from his statement and stated that goods were
directly sent to his customers and he did not physically receive goods in his
shop - Assessing Officer, however, held that ‘V’ was only preparing false bills
for assessee for which he received a commission, and, therefore, he added back
some amounts to income of assessee - Whether since statement of ‘V’ was
recorded after search proceedings with a view to confirm correctness of account
books and it was not recorded because of some incriminating material that was
unearthed during search proceedings, it could not be said that statement of ‘V’
was a direct consequence or result of obtaining some incriminating material
which showed that assessee had undisclosed income - Held, yes - Whether,
therefore, addition made was unjustified - Held, yes - CIT v.
Vikas Electronics (International) (P.) Ltd. (Delhi)
Business disallowance
Remuneration, etc., paid in excess of prescribed limit in case of
company
- Whether on remuneration
received by managing director who is also an employee of company, tax has to be
deducted on basis of higher of two ceilings under section 40(c) and
section 40A(5) - Held, yes - CIT v. Milk Food Ltd. (Delhi)
Business expenditure
Allowability of
- Assessment year 1979-80 -
Assessee-company was manufacturing fans and sewing machines at various units -
It undertook a Fuel Injection Equipment Project in Hyderabad - Assessee claimed
that pre-operative expenses incurred in relation to said project like testing
charges, interest charges, bank commission, foreign travelling, etc., were in
nature of revenue nature - Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s claim holding
that said pre-operative expenditure was in nature of expenses incurred in
connection with setting up of a new line of business and, therefore, said
expenditure was capital expenditure - New venture was managed from common
funds; control over two units was in hands of same management and
administration; and there was necessary unity of control leading to an
inter-connection, inter-dependence and inter-lacing of two ventures -
Whether it could be said that Fuel
Injection Equipment Project was only an extension of existing business of
assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, pre-operative expenditure
incurred by assessee on said project was revenue expenditure - Held, yes
- Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi)
- Assessment year 1997-98 -
Assessee, a 100 per cent export-oriented unit dealing in garments, claimed
certain expenditure towards fabrication charges - Assessing Officer issued
summons to some of parties, to whom payment was allegedly made by assessee -
Said summons, however, came back with report that such persons were not found
existing at given addresses - When asked to produce those parties, assessee
contended that matter was 3-4 years old and parties might have shifted or gone
out of business during that period; that payments were made to all those
persons through account-payee cheques and that there was a gate pass and
challan system, which was being strictly adhered to in that regard - Assessee
requested Assessing Officer to depute a person to trace out parties - Assessing
Officer did not take any steps to trace out parties, but added amount paid to
fabricators as income - Whether since explanation that parties concerned might
have moved out or closed down their business, appeared plausible, Assessing
Officer was unjustified in making addition - Held, yes - CIT v.
Fancy International (Delhi)
- Assessment year 1976-77 - On
dispute whether ice cream sold by assessee was exigible to sales tax or not,
High Court held that ice cream manufactured and sold by assessee was not
exigible to sales tax - Against said order revenue filed appeal before Supreme
Court - During pendency of said appeal assessee following mercantile system of
accounting, made a provision for sales tax liability in relevant accounting
period and claimed deduction of same - Revenue’s case was that since assessee
did not, in fact, pay any sales tax on sale of ice cream in relevant previous
year there was no question of any provision for sales tax being made - Whether
assessee was entitled to claim deduction in respect of liability of sales tax
for which it had made a provision in its account books - Held, yes -
Whether, moreover, liability did not cease to be a liability merely because
assessee had disputed it and so long as appeal filed by revenue was pending
before Supreme Court, liability had accrued insofar as assessee was concerned -
Held, yes - CIT v. Kwality Ice Cream (Delhi)
Year in which deductible
- Assessment year 1979-80 -
Certain amount was payable by assessee to company ‘H’ for certain purchases
made from it in 1975 - Said liability, however, was disputed by assessee -
Assessee’s case was that since ‘H’ filed a recovery suit against assessee on
18-8-1978 and he was following mercantile system of accounting, said liability
accrued in assessment year in question and, therefore, said liability was
deductible in assessment year in question - Revenue, however, contended that
said liability was a contingent liability and not an ascertained one - Whether
since liability in question was capable of being estimated with reasonable
certainty when recovery suit was filed by ‘H’ against assessee on 18-8-1978 and
merely because that liability was not a statutory one, it could not be said
that it was not an ascertained one, but a contingent one, assessee’s claim
should be allowed in assessment year in question - Held, yes - R.C.
Gupta v. CIT (Delhi)
Cash credits
- Assessing Officer held that long-term
capital gain declared by assessee was false and transaction was not genuine and
considered same as unexplained credit - Assessee had taken shares from market,
shares were listed and transaction took place through a registered broker of
stock exchange - There was no material before Assessing Officer which could
have led to a conclusion that transaction was simplicitor a device to
camouflage activities, to defraud revenue - Whether Assessing Officer was
justified - Held, no - CIT v. Anupam Kapoor (Punj. &
Har.)
Charitable or religious trust
Exemption of income from property held under
- Whether in view of decision of
Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust
[2001] 250 ITR 475, Tribunal was right in holding that provisions of section
13(2)(h) were not applicable to assessee and as such assessee was
entitled to exemption from tax under section 11 in respect of income arising to
it from shares and property donated by ‘S’ - Held, yes - DIT v.
Sir Sobha Singh Charitable Trust (Delhi)
- Assessment year 1997-98 -
Assessee, a registered society, sought permission to accumulate unspent funds
under section 11(2) for objects of trust - Assessing Officer denied benefit of
accumulation as he was of view that objects for which accumulation was sought
were not particularized inasmuch as they covered entire range of objects of
trust - Whether in view of Delhi High
Court decision in CIT v. Hotel and Restaurant Association [2003]
261 ITR 190, Assessing Officer erred in denying claim of assessee for
accumulation of unapplied income in terms of section 11(2) - Held, yes -
Bharat Krishak Samaj v. Dy. DIT (Delhi)
Deductions
Profits and gains from hotels or industrial undertaking, etc., in
backward areas
- Assessment year 1995-96 -
Assessee was engaged in manufacture and sale of portable gensets and water
pumps - It imported certain spare parts and components and additionally
imported gensets of a certain capacity which were not being manufactured in
India - Assessee claimed deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I - Assessing Officer disallowed claim in
respect of profits earned from both sale of spare parts and components as well
as sale of imported gensets on ground that profits therefrom could not be
considered to be income derived from activity of industrial undertaking which
was manufacture of gensets - Whether Assessing Officer was justified - Held,
yes - Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi)
Profits and gains from new industrial undertakings, ships or hotels,
etc.
- Assessment years 1979-80 and
1980-81 - Assessee-company took on lease plant and machinery, owned by ‘R’
company including assets, land, factory building, furniture and fixtures and
other equipments - Assessee filed return and claimed deduction under section
80J on investment made by it in generator, in office equipment and furniture in
factory taken on lease - Whether assessee was entitled to deduction under
section 80J - Held, no - CIT v. Bakeman’s Home Products (Punj.
& Har.)
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998
Disputed income
- Assessment years 1994-95 and
1995-96 - Whether additional tax levied under section 143(1A) in respect of an assessment
year is a tax and would, therefore, form a part of disputed tax for purposes of
determination of disputed income under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Held,
yes - H.L. Taneja v. CIT (MP)
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998
- Section 87(e)
High Court, appeals to
- Assessment year 1998-99 -
Whether where appeal filed by assessee under section 260A if admitted would
result in reappreciation of evidence which could not constitute a basis for
reversing findings rendered by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, appeal did
not warrant admission and same was to be dismissed - Held, yes - Subhash
Chander Gupta v. ITO (Punj. & Har.)
Income
Chargeable as
- Assessment year 1978-79 -
Whether if there is a complete disposal of asset with know-how resulting in
parting of asset for a lump sum, with no reference to anticipate user,
consideration received for disposal of such asset would be a capital receipt - Held,
yes - Lipi International v. CIT (Bom.)
Definition of
- Assessment year 1997-98 -
Assessee society received Rs. 2 lakhs from WAFM for holding a national
convention for farmers - According to assessee, it was an advance for holding
convention which could not be held in that year but was held in subsequent year
and amount was utilized therefor - There was, however, nothing to suggest from
records that amount was actually received as an advance and it was also not
clear whether convention was to be held for and on behalf of donor or was to be
utilized for holding a national convention of assessee - Whether in view of
failure of assessee to explain said receipt, provisions of section 2(24)(iia)
would be attracted and amount must be treated as income of assessee and not as
capital receipt for assessment year in question - Held, yes - Bharat
Krishak Samaj v. Dy. DIT (Delhi)
Income escaping assessment
Issue of notice for
- Assessment year 1996-97 -
Assessing Officer after completing assessment of assessee, received an
information from office of DDIT (Investigation) that there were bogus entries
of long-term capital gain taken by some assessees from a firm ‘M’ whose bank
and account number were identified; one
of bogus entries related specifically by name to assessee; in fact, no sale or
purchase of shares had actually taken place; and person who had operated
account of firm ‘M’ had admitted in his statement that bogus transactions
relating to sale and purchase of shares were done through this bank account and
most of beneficiaries had availed relief under section 54F - On basis of
aforesaid reasons, Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under
section 147/148 against assessee and made an addition to assessee’s income on
account of bogus capital gain - Whether, on facts, Assessing Officer was
justified - Held, yes - CIT v. Vipin Batra (Delhi)
Non-disclosure of primary facts
- Assessment year 1996-97 -
Subsequent to completion of assessment, Assessing Officer found that assessee
had set off loss from transaction of shares to tune of Rs. 15,73,020 from business income; and,
hence, loss in share dealing should have been treated as speculative loss which
could not be set off against business income as per Explanation to
section 73 - Assessing Officer in view of above finding had reason to believe
that income to tune of Rs. 15,07,070 had escaped assessment - Assessing
Officer, accordingly, reopened assessment after issuing notice under section
148 - Assessee’s case was that entire material had been disclosed to Assessing
Officer who had even asked for details relating to purchase and sale of shares;
and since entire material had been disclosed, Assessing Officer had done
nothing more than change his opinion for issuing a notice under section 148
after expiry of period of four years from end of relevant assessment year -
Whether since all material had been produced by assessee before Assessing
Officer, it was clear that reopening of completed assessment of assessee in
instant case was only as a result of change of opinion of Assessing Officer - Held,
yes - CIT v. Ashoka Builders (P.) Ltd. (Delhi)
Income-tax Act, 1961
- Section 2(24)
- Section 4
- Section 11
- Section 17(2)
- Section 32A
- Section 36(1)(vii)
- Section 37(1)
- Section 37(3A)
- Section 40(c)
- Section 64
- Section 68
- Section 80HH
- Section 80J
- Section 147
- Section 148
- Section 158B
- Section 158BA
- Section 244A
- Section 260A
- Section 263
- Section 276
Investment allowance
- Whether, in view of decision of
Supreme Court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR
308/97 Taxman 435, Tribunal was correct in directing Assessing Officer to allow
investment allowance to assessee-company which was a leasing company, on
machinery or plant leased by it to third party and also in directing Assessing
Officer to consider assessee’s claim regarding brought forward investment
allowance of earlier years - Held, yes - CIT v. Surya
Industries Ltd. (Delhi)
- Assessment years
1989-90,1991-92 and 1992-93 - For assessment years in question assessee claimed
investment allowance under section 32A - Assessing Officer was of view that it
was only to be allowed in one assessment year and not in several assessment years
- High Court relying upon decision of Madras High Court in Southern Asbestos
Cement Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 631, held that in view of section
43A(1), investment allowance was to be granted in different assessment years -
Revenue contended that section 43A(1) relates to fluctuation of foreign
exchange and its effect on valuation of assets and since it has nothing to do
with question as to whether investment allowance is allowable on such assets in
one year, decision relied upon by High Court had no application and said
position was fairly accepted by assessee - Whether matter was to be remitted
back to High Court for fresh adjudication - Held, yes - CIT v.
Lucas T. V. S. Ltd. (SC)
Offences and prosecutions
Wilful attempt to evade tax
- Assessment year 1985-86 -
Whether once order of penalty has been cancelled by Tribunal, finding of
Tribunal is conclusive and prosecution cannot be sustained - Held, yes -
H.T. Power Structure (P.) Ltd. v. R.P. Sharma (Guj.)
Refunds
Interest on
- Assessment year 1997-98 -
Whether assessee is entitled to interest under section 244A when refund has
arisen on account of payment of self-assessment tax - Held, yes - CIT
v. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. (Mad.)
Revision
Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue
- Assessment year 1992-93 -
Assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC, which was allowed by Assessing
Officer - However, Commissioner was of view that order passed by Assessing
Officer was prejudicial to interest of revenue as while working out deduction
under section 80HHC Assessing Officer had ignored negative profit and,
accordingly, set aside order of Assessing Officer by passing order dated
5-3-1997 - Revenue’s case was that 2005 amendment in section 80HHC which is
clarificatory and retrospective in nature itself indicates that view taken by
Assessing Officer at relevant time was unsustainable in law - Whether since two
views existed on word ‘profits’ in proviso to section 80HHC(3), on day when
Commissioner passed his order and moreover mechanics of section have become so
complicated over years that two views were inherently possible, subsequent
amendment in 2005 even though retrospective would not attract provision of
section 263, particularly when one had to take into account position of law as
it stood on date when Commissioner passed order in purported exercise of his
powers under section 263 - Held, yes - CIT v. Max India Ltd. (SC)
Salaries
Perquisites
- Assessment years 1997-98 to
1999-2000 - Whether section 17(2)(iiia) inserted by Finance Act, 1999
w.e.f. 1-4-2000 was clarificatory and, therefore, retrospective in nature - Held,
no - To implement ESOP, assessee-company created a trust and allotted 7,50,000
warrants at Re. 1 each to said trust - Each warrant entitled its holder to be
allotted one equity share of face value of Rs. 10 each for total consideration
of Rs. 100 - Trust was to hold warrant and transfer same to employees of
company - During relevant assessment years, warrants were offered to eligible
employees at Re. 1 each by trust -
Every warrant had to be retained for a minimum period of 1 year - At end of that period, employee was
entitled to elect and obtain shares allotted to him on payment balance Rs. 99 -
Option could be exercised at any time after 12 months but before expiry of
period of 5 years - Allotted shares were subject to lock-in period and an
employee had to continue to be in service for 5 years - If he would resign or
his service be terminated for any reason, he would lose his right under scheme
and shares were to be re-transferred to trust for Rs. 100 per share - Shares
were stamped with remark non-transferable, making them incapable of being
converted into money during lock-in period - Stock exchange was also notified -
Whether in view of facts that (i) during lock-in-period there was no
cash inflow to employees on account of mere exercise of options, (ii) on
date when options were exercised, it was not possible for employees to foresee
future market value of shares and (iii) benefit, if any, which arose on
date when option stood exercised was only a notional benefit whose value was
unascertainable, department had erred in treating amount being difference in
market value of shares on date of exercise of option and total amount ‘paid’ by
employees consequent upon exercise of said options as perquisite value - Held,
yes - CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (SC)
Transfer of assets
For benefit of spouse, etc.
- Assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94
- Commissioner (Appeals) while deleting additions made by Assessing Officer
being income of assessee’s minor daughters clubbed in assessee’s hands under
section 64(1)(iv), observed that in their returns minor daughters had
shown to have derived income from bank deposits and money lent as
loans/advances to several persons, and there was no evidence in returns that
income had arisen from asset transferred to them by assessee either for
inadequate or no consideration so as to attract provisions of section 64(1)(iv)
- Tribunal upheld deletion - Whether since concurrent finding was given by
authorities that there was no evidence on record that income had arisen from
assets transferred to children of assessee, by assessee, either for inadequate
or no consideration so as to attract provisions of section 64(1)(iv),
Tribunal was justified - Held, yes - CIT v. B. Jayalakshmi (Mad.)
Words & phrases
- ‘transfer’ as occurring in
clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of section 80J of the Income-tax Act,
1961
magazine
features
features
q losses
yamuna k.
- Treatment of losses : Mergers
and amalgamation
q exempt income
t.n. pandey, Ex-Chairman, CBDT
- Applicability of section 14A of
the Income-tax Act, 1961 - A case study
case digest/itat
q table of cases digested
Arun Excello Foundations (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Chennai -
Trib.)
Salora International Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Delhi - Trib.)
q Subject
Index to cases digested
Income-tax
Assessment
Additions to income
- Assessment year 2001-02 - Assessee
was engaged in manufacture of TV sets - Assessing Officer having noticed that
there was a sharp increase in defective TV sets during year under consideration
as compared to earlier years, made certain addition to income of assessee on
account of under valuation of closing stock - Reason for increase in defective
sets during year under consideration was due to fact that, for first time, a
quality check exercise of inventory was conducted, wherein it was found that
number of defective sets were much larger than expected and there was actually
no under valuation of stock, but it represented write off of dead stock on
account of quality audit being conducted by assessee - Whether addition made to
income of assessee was unjustified - Held, yes - Salora International
Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Delhi - Trib.)
Business expenditure
Allowability of
- Assessment year 2001-02 -
Assessee was engaged in production of TV sets - It incurred certain expenditure
on advertisement and claimed deduction of same as revenue expenditure under
section 37(1) - Assessing Officer held that out of these expenditure some
expenditure was incurred for obtaining enduring benefit with regard to
enhancing its brand equity and, accordingly, disallowed one-third of
expenditure as being of capital nature - Whether since by incurring expenditure
on advertisement, assessee had not got any fixed capital assets, but
expenditure was for earning better profit and facilitating assessee’s sales
operation, there was a direct nexus between advertisement expenditure and
business of assessee and, as such, entire advertisement expenditure was to be
allowed as revenue expenditure - Held, yes - Salora International
Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Delhi - Trib.)
- Assessment year 2001-02 - In
pursuance to an agreement approved by Government of India for payment of
royalty on manufacture of fly back transfer and reflection yokes for colour TV,
assessee-company paid to a Japanese company royalty at rate of 5 per cent on
ex-factory sales price and claimed deduction of same as revenue expenditure -
Assessing Officer held that by way of such payment of royalty, assessee had
derived enduring benefit inasmuch as it became entitled to right to produce
components as aforesaid and, accordingly, treated said expenditure as capital
expenditure - Right to manufacture was non exclusive as it was only for a
limited period of five years - Quantum of payment was also linked to quantum of
production and sales and if there had been no sales, no royalty was liable to
be paid - Whether expenditure was to be allowed as revenue expenditure - Held,
yes - Salora International Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Delhi - Trib.)
- Assessment year 2001-02 -
Whether if advantage consists merely in facilitating assessee’s trading
operations or enabling management and conduct of assessee’s business to be
carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving fixed capital
untouched, expenditure would be on revenue account, even though advantage may
endure for an indefinite future - Held, yes - Salora International
Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Delhi - Trib.)
Deductions
Profits and gains from industrial undertakings
other than infrastructure development undertakings
- Assessment years 2003-04 and
2004-05 - Whether amendment to section 80-IB(10), brought out by Finance (No.
2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1-4-2005, whereby a restriction is put regarding
maximum commercial area to be built-up by assessee, for purposes of claiming
deduction under said section, would apply only prospectively and not
retrospectively - Held, yes - Arun Excello Foundations (P.) Ltd.
v. Asstt. CIT (Chennai - Trib.)
Income-tax Act, 1961
- Section 37(1)
- Section 80-IB
- Section 143
q Table of cases
CIT v. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd.
CIT v. Balsara Home Products
CIT v. Globe Machine Tools Mfg.
CIT v. Jyotiben S. Koticha
CIT v. Nitinbhai T. Bhupatani
CIT v. Raghavji Bhai B. Patel
CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.
CIT v. Srinath Oil Mills (P.) Ltd.
CIT v. TMT India Ltd.
CIT v. Umiya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd.
CIT v. Viral Foam (P.) Ltd.