Provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the “book profits” for purposes of section 115JA because they merely represent the dimunition in the value of an asset and are not a provision for an unascertained liability.
Where the Government formulated a scheme of subsidy to encourage the setting up of sugar factories and to make them viable under which new sugar factories were entitled to a subsidy in the form of enhancement of free sale sugar quota and excise duty rebate thereon which could only be used for repayment of loans taken for the unit and the question arose whether such subsidy was taxable HELD, in determining whether the subsidy is capital or revenue, the “purpose” test had to be adopted. The source of the subsidy, its form and the point of time when it is paid are irrelevant. On facts, held, following Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 that the subsidy was capital in nature.
Where the assessee had filed a SLP in the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling of the AAR without first filing a writ petition in the High Court, it was directed to withdraw the SLP and file a writ petition.
Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the question arose whether such recall was justified, HELD, upholding the order of the Tribunal:
Where in respect of the asst. year 1990-91, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-HHC on traded goods on the proportion that the export turnover bore to the total turnover even though there were no profits from the export activity and the High Court held, relying on IPCA Laboratories vs. CIT 266 ITR 521 (SC), that in the absence of export profits deduction u/s 80-HHC was not available, HELD, reversing the judgement of the High Court that in accordance with the CBDT Circular issued under the then prevailing s. 80-HHC, deduction was allowable on the proportionate basis notwithstanding the absence of profits from the export activity and the judgement in IPCA Laboratories had no application.
Where the assessee had entered into a production sharing contract with a consortium which was governed by section 42 of the Act and the assessee made contribution at a certain rate to the consortium whereas the expenditure incurred out of the said contribution stood converted on the basis of a different exchaneg rate which exercise resulted into a loss on conversion of foreign currency to the assessee and the AO held the loss to be a notional loss, Held,
Where the High Court summarily dismissed an application without giving any reasons HELD that this manner of dealing left a lot to be desired. It was imperative to record reasons and the failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee is not a “local authority” after insertion of the Explanation in Section 10(20) vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and is consequently not entitled to the benefit under Section 10 of the 1961 Act.
the amendment to Explanation 4 to s. 271(1)(c), though made with effect from 1st April 2003, should be treated as clarificatory and retrospective.
A development agreement is one where the land-holder provides the land. The Builder puts up a building. Thereafter, the land owner and builder share the constructed area. The builder delivers the `owner’s share’ to the land-holder and retains the `builder’s share’. The land-holder sells/transfers undivided share/s in the land corresponding to the Builder’s share of the building to the builder or his nominees. The land-holder will have no say or control in the construction or have any say as to whom and at what cost the builder’s share of apartments are to be dealt with or disposed of. Such an agreement is not a “joint venture” in the legal sense. It is a contract for “services”.