Messages

See Neerja KumarMangalam Birla (Mum ITAT) where it was held that even single transaction can be held to be Business Income

The thing is that if you say that in almost all the cases or even in a majority of cases, the Assessee had immediately sold the shares on listing, it shows the intent of the assessee in dealing and not investing in shares.
It may be given the character of ' adventure in the nature of trade'.   
So it can be held to be Business income.

Dear all

Under the wealth tax the valuation of depreciable assets is given below

(i)    in the case of an asset on which depreciation is admissible, its written-down value;

My query is that the written down value should be as per the Income tax act or as per the books of accounts?


Bhavesh Savla
Keep smiling.

There is no concept of deferred revenue expenses in the Income tax act, 1961.
Either you claim it entirely in the first year or you claim it as Capital asset and therefore as depreciation.
If you go for appeal then as an alternative plea do claim it a s a Capital asset.

If you claim it as revenue expenditure then the AO can disallow the claim of the first year expenditure as prior period item.

IThe plea of the year in which the software was operationalised is taken when you want ot capitalise something.
Please tell me your counter-arguements also.

Bhavesh Savla
Keep smiling

Your query is not very clear.

Did the Company claim it in year 1 or year 2?
When did the AO allow it as deduction?

Kindly clarify.

Under 115 JB a company is allowed to deduct the minimum of brought forward business losses or depreciation.

Suppose a company never had owned fixed assets and therefore has never claimed depreciation in its books as an expense.

Under such facts if we apply 115JB strictly, then the company will never be able to take the benefit of brought forward business losses.

Can one argue that the provision relating to unabsorbed depreciation won't apply to such a case and therefore the company can claim unabsorbed business loss for calculation of book profits for section 115JB

--Bhavesh Savla

Keep Smiling.

I have read in an article on the BCAS website that there is also a Calcutta Tribunal decision in the case of Mino Deogan which is favourable to the assessee.

Correct Bhupendraji

Gift goes to capital a/c and Loan goes to Current Liabilities.
But the question was if the AO can tax Interest-free loan  as Gift Income? If you have some proof that the transaction was indeed a loan amount and have sufficient documentation then the AO can never treat it as Income.

Ideally at least keep some nominal amount of Interest such that the TDS provisions are not attracted and the assessee is safe because then nothing will happen to treat it as a Gift.

Bhavesh Savla
Keep smiling.   

It is necessary to ensure perfect documentation in case of an interest-free loan because it is difficult to distinguish between a gift and interest-free loan. 

Bhavesh Savla

Keep smiling.




   

Thanks Ashutosh a lot.

Can anyone find any similar issue or similar subject which took place in the past.???

Thanking you

Bhavesh Savla
Keep Smiling.

Dear all

Section 35D has been amended by the Budget 2008 to include non-industrial undertakings also.Thus they can get the benefit from AY 2009-10.

My question is that should the expenditure be necessarily incurred in the FY 2008-09 to get this benefit. Suppose an assessee incurrs an expenditure in FY 2007-08. Is it possible to take a view that it will not get the 20% allowance in the AY 2008-09 but it can start getting the allowance of  20% from AY 2009-10. The Section 35D nowhere says that the expenditure should be in the prevoius year relating to the year of first allowance.

Your views would be highly appreciated.

Bhavesh Savla
Keep smiling.

Dear All

Is there any decided laws on SEBI registration fees paid to SEBI by Merchant Banker.

IS it allowable as Revenue Expenditure or to be capitalised as a dead loss??

Bhavesh Savla
Keep Smiling.

The most important part is to first file a return.
Then do not forget to ask for the reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment.

right now we have a deduction for P.T. Can we argue on the basis of this judgment that P.T. is not chargeable to tax but we can still get a deduction for the P.T. paid or will Section 14A stand in the way?

The citation is correct Sir. Anyways I am attaching the judgment.