Home ›

Search Results For: deduction

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 5, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 6, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 1993-94 to 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) The sweeping proposition in some Supreme Court decisions that when two views are possible, the one favourable to assessee has to be preferred & that a tax incentive provision must receive liberal interpretation, is disapproved by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB). The burden is on the assessee to prove eligibility to an incentive or exemption provision and it is subject to strict interpretation. If there is ambiguity, the benefit of the ambiguity has to go to the Revenue. However, if the assessee proves eligibility, a wide and liberal construction of the provision has to be done (ii) Merely having a contract with a foreign enterprise and mere earning foreign exchange does not ipso facto lead to the application of s. 80-O of the Act (All judgements considered in detail)

The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1, when applied to incentive provisions like those for deduction, would also be that the burden lies on the assessee to prove its applicability to his case; and if there be any ambiguity in the deduction clause, the same is subject to strict interpretation with the result that the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the assessee, rather it would be interpreted in favour of the revenue. In view of the Constitution Bench decision in Dilip Kumar & Co. (supra), the generalised observations in Baby Marine Exports 290 ITR 323 (SC) with reference to a few other decisions, that a tax incentive provision must receive liberal interpretation, cannot be considered to be a sound statement of law; rather the applicable principles would be those enunciated in Wood Papers Ltd. (1990) 4 SCC 256, which have been precisely approved by the Constitution Bench

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10A/ 10B: The bar in s. 92CA(4) that the assessee is not entitled to s. 10A/ 10B deductions in respect of transfer pricing adjustments applies only where the adjustment is made by the AO/ TPO. If the assessee suo motu makes the adjustment and offers higher income, s. 10A/10B deduction cannot be denied. Also, as such notional income is not "export turnover", the condition in s. 10A/10B that foreign exchange must be brought to India does not apply (Deloitte Consulting (ITAT Mum) not followed as it is contrary to iGate Global (Kar HC))

There is no dispute in the minds of authorities below that it is profits of business. Such profit of business is neither export turnover nor the total turnover of assessee but is artificial income which needs to be taxed in the hands of assessee. Consequently, we hold that the said artificial income cannot be part of export turnover or total turnover though it will be part of profits of business. Simile which follows is that in the absence of it being offered as export turnover or total turnover, then there could not be any condition for getting foreign exchange to India. The assessee has computed the additional income by following the transfer pricing provisions and has offered the same to tax as its business profits. Once it has been so offered to tax, it forms part of profits of business and while computing the deduction under section 10A(4) of the Act, the said profits have to be taken into consideration and the deduction so computed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10A/10B: After the change in scheme from “exemption” to “deduction” w.e.f. 01.04.2001, brought forward unabsorbed loss & depreciation of other 10B units and non-10B units are not liable for set off against the current year's profit of the 10B unit. The contrary law laid down in Himatasingike Seide 156 Taxman 151 (Kar), as approved by the Supreme Court, deals with the law pre 01.04.2001 when s. 10A/10B provided for an “exemption” and not a “deduction”

We find that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Himatasingike Seide Ltd. (supra) which was undisturbed by the Apex Court was in respect of Assessment Year 1994-95. Thus it dealt with the provisions of Section 10B of the Act as existing prior to 1 April 2001 which was admittedly different from Section 10B as in force during Assessment Year 2009-10 involved in this appeal. Section 10B of the Act as existing prior to 1 April 2001 provided for an exemption in respect of profits and gains derived from export by 100% Export Oriented Undertakings and now it provides for deduction of profits and gains derived from a 100% Exported Oriented Units

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 15, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 24, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80P(2)(d): Interest and dividend earned by a co-op society on investments with other co-operative societies is eligible for deduction. The question whether the co-op society is engaged in the business of banking for providing credit facilities to its members and the head under which the income is assessable is not material (Totagar’s Co-op Society 322 ITR 283 (SC) distinguished)

The Supreme Court in the case of Totagar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd held that a society has surplus funds which are invested in short term deposits where the society is engaged in the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members in that case the said income from short term deposits shall be treated and assessed as income from other sources and deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) would not be available meaning thereby that deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) is available only in respect of income which is assessable as business income and not as income from other sources. Whereas in distinction to this , the provisions of section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act provides for deduction in respect of income of a coop society by way of interest or dividend from its investments with other coop society if such income is included in the gross total income of the such coop society

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54F: If the assessee has made full payment to the builder for purchase/ construction of a new residential house but is not able to get the title of the flat registered in his name or is unable to get the possession of the flat within the prescribed period due to fault of the builder, the assessee cannot be denied deduction u/s 54F

It is a fact that the assessee has invested this amount of Rs.18,60,000/- in purchase of residential house within the stipulated period prescribed u/s 54F of the Act. But, it is not in the assessee’s hand to get the flat completed or to get the flat registered in his name, because it was incomplete. The intention of the assessee is very clear that he has invested almost the entire sale consideration of land in purchase of this residential flat. It is another issue that the flat could not be completed and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court seeking relief by the assessee by filing suit for direction to the Builder to complete the flat. It is impossible for the assessee to complete other formalities i.e. taking over possession for getting the flat registered in his name and this cannot be the reason for denying the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54 of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB(4): Subsidies (such as transport subsidy, Interest subsidy and power subsidy) paid to the assessee with the object of reducing the cost of production constitutes "profits derived from the business of the industrial undertaking" and is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB. Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC) is distinguishable on facts

In Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax 317 ITR 218 (SC)/ 2009 (9) SCC 328, what this Court was concerned with was an export incentive, which is very far removed from reimbursement of an element of cost. A DEPB drawback scheme is not related to the business of an industrial undertaking for manufacturing or selling its products. DEPB entitlement arises only when the undertaking goes on to export the said product, that is after it manufactures or produces the same. Pithily put, if there is no export, there is no DEPB entitlement, and therefore its relation to manufacture of a product and/or sale within India is not proximate or direct but is one step removed. Also, the object behind DEPB entitlement, as has been held by this Court, is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty payment on the import content of the export product which is provided for by credit to customs duty against the export product. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that such duty exemption scheme is derived from profits and gains made by the industrial undertaking or business itself

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 1, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IA: As CBDT's Circular No.1/ 2016 dated 15.2.2016 is in line with Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills 340 ITR 477 (Mad) the Dept should not agitate the controversy whether deduction u/s 80IA is allowable without setting off losses/unabsorbed depreciation which were set off in earlier years against other business income

On the basis of the decision in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (340 ITR 477), the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued Circular No.1/ 2016 dated 15.2.2016. The CBDT has clarified that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option to choose the initial/first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen (or twenty) years, as prescribed under that Sub-Section. It is clarified that once such initial assessment year has been opted for by the assessee, he shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s 801A for ten consecutive years beginning from the year in respect of which he has exercised such option subject to the fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the section. Hence, the term ‘initial assessment year’ would mean the first year opted for by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 801A. However, the total number of years for claiming deduction should not transgress the prescribed slab of fifteen or twenty years, as the case may be and the period of claim should be availed in continuity

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80HHC: Sale proceeds of scrap cannot be included in total turnover

The issue in these appeals pertains to the question whether the proceeds generated from the sale of scrap would be included in the total turnover. In the recent decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries & Ors. reported in [2014] 364 ITR 144 (SC) it has been held that sale proceeds generated from the sale of scrap would not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Argument that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made if the assessee's income is deductible u/s 10A/ 10B is not acceptable. Contrary view in TCS cannot be followed as it is obiter dicta & contrary to law laid down in Aztech Software 107 ITD 141 (SB)

No exception has been carved out by the statute for non-determination of the ALP of an international transaction of an assessee who is eligible for the benefit of deduction section 10A/10B or any other section of Chapter- VIA of the Act. Section 92(1) clearly provides that any income arising from an international transaction is required to be computed having regard to its arm’s length price. There is no provision exempting the computation of total income arising from an international transaction having regard to its ALP, in the case of an assessee entitled to deduction u/s 10A or 10B or any other relevant provision. Section 92C dealing with computation of ALP clearly provides that the ALP in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by one of the methods given in this provision. This section also does not immune an international transaction from the computation of its ALP when income is otherwise eligible for deduction. On the contrary, we find that sub-section (4) of section 92C plainly stipulates that where an ALP is determined, the AO may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the ALP so determined. This shows that the total income of an assessee entering into an international transaction, is required to be necessarily computed having regard to its ALP without any exception

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 23(1)(b): Brokerage paid to give out premises on rent and to earn lease rent is not deductible in computing the Income from house property

The word ‘rent’ connotes a return given by the tenant or occupant of the land or corporeal hereditaments to the owner for the possession and use thereof. It is a sum agreed between the tenant and the owner to be paid at fixed intervals for the usage of such property. The phrase rent received and receivable contemplates the amount received for the enjoyment of the property and certain rights in the said property by the tenant. If there is charge directly related to the rental income or for the property without which the rights in the property cannot be enjoyed by the tenant then it can be construed as part and parcel of enjoyment of the property from where rent is received then such charges can be held to be allowable from the rent received or receivable. However, the brokerage paid to the third party has nothing to do with the rental income paid by the tenant for enjoying the property to the owner. Brokerage cannot be said to be a charge that has been created in the property for enjoying the rights and at best it is only an application of income received/receivable from rent

Read more ›