The assessee – society and its members had no right to construct additional floors on the existing building as they had exhausted the right available while constructing the flats in the building. The TDR was not obtained by the assessee and sold to the developer. Accordingly, the assessee had not transferred any existing right to the developer nor any cost was incurred / suffered prior to permitting the developer to construct the additional floors. In the absence of a cost of acquisition, the judgement in B. C. Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 (SC) applied and the consideration was not assessable as capital gains.

The effect of the judgements of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres and HCL Comnet is that if the accounts are prepared as per Schedule VI to the Companies Act, the AO has no jurisdiction to make adjustments to the “book profits” other than what was provided in the Explanation to s. 115JB. There is no scope for excluding non-taxable profits from the “book profits” as s. 54EC is not specified in the Explanation.

In Apollo Tyres Ltd 265 ITR 273 and Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd 262 ITR 340 it was held that if the accounts were prepared in accordance with Schedule VI, the AO had no jurisdiction to make adjustments beyond what was provided in s. 115JB. However, as the assessee had bypassed the provisions of Schedule VI and directly credited the capital profit to the reserve account, these judgements did not apply and the AO had the power to rework the book profit.

In Syncome Formulations, the Special Bench had to consider two questions i.e. (a) method of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC and (b) percentage of deduction allowable in each year. As regards the percentage of deduction, the Special Bench held that the assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction. This view was overruled by the High Court in Ajanta Pharma where it was held that in view of s. 80HHC (1B), deduction was only allowable as per the limits set out therein. However, the first issue as to the method of deduction u/s 80HHC was not before the High Court. As per Sun Engineering 198 ITR 297, the observations of a Court have to be read in context. Consequently, the judgement of the Special Bench on this aspect still held good and the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC even though there were no normal profits.

The judgement of the Special Bench in Ashima Syntex Ltd 117 ITD 1 has to be followed in preference to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Snowcem India Ltd 313 ITR 170 and it has to be held that the assessee was liable to pay interest u/ss 234B & 234C even when income was computed u/s 115JA.

In accordance with the principles of purposive interpretation of statutes, Expl. (iii) to s. 48 has to be read to mean that the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed by taking into account the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner.

s. 80-IA (4) (even pre-amendment) applies to a “developer”. The difference between a “developer” and “contractor” is that the former designs and conceives new projects while the latter executes the same. As the assessee was merely executing the job of civil construction, it was not eligible u/s 80-IA (4).

Though in general law, a firm and its partners are not distinct, this is subject to statutory exceptions. Under the scheme of assessment of firms applicable from AY. 1993-94 a firm is treated as an independent entity and the expenditure by way of remuneration, interest, commission etc. paid to partners is allowable to it as a deduction subject to ceilings and such interest, salary etc is taxable in the hands of the partners. A firm and its partners are consequently separate entities under the Act. Accordingly, the fact that the profits are charged to tax in the hands of the firm does not mean that the share of such profits is non – exempt in the hands of the partner. The profits being exempt in the hands of the partner, s. 14-A does apply in computing his total income.

The provision of the transponder through which the telecasting companies are able to uplink the desired images/data and downlink the same in the desired area is a “process”. To constitute “royalty”, it is not necessary that the process should be a “secret process”. The fact there is a ‘comma’ after the words “secret formula or process” in the DTAA does not mean that a different interpretation has to be given to the DTAA as compared to the Act. The consideration paid by telecasting companies to satellite companies is for the purpose of providing “use of the process” and consequently assessable as “royalty” under the Act and the DTAA.

Expl. 7 to s. 271 (1) (c) provides that in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction, any amount added or disallowed in computing the total income u/s 92C (4) shall for purposes of s. 271 (1) (c) be deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars furnished unless the assessee shows that the s. 92C computation was made in good faith and with due diligence.

(i) The question whether the provision for bad debt in respect of sum owed by the parent company is a matter falling in the ordinary course of trade or whether it is an extraordinary item warranting exclusion from operational cost is a debatable point on which there can be two opinions. The fact that the assessee accepted the addition and did not challenge the same will not change this aspect;

(ii) In accordance with the law in Hindustan Steel 83 ITR 26 (SC) and Nath Bros 288 ITR 670 (Del), penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) cannot be imposed where there is merely a difference of opinion. Penalty also cannot be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation;