Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - PANKAJ JAIN

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
can you please reconfirm the citation.

thanks

2
Discussion / Re: 271[1][c] vs 115JB
« on: February 04, 2011, 01:40:23 PM »
Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for sharing, but can we get the citation or the decision.

Best Regards,

3
Discussion / Re: Sec 44AD
« on: January 27, 2011, 03:22:26 PM »
IMHO :

Section 44AD has carefully used the word 'Business'. Further the maximum limit of Rs.60 Lacs points it to the Business covered under 44AB for 60 Lacs limit. Therefore, the professions who are subject to tax audit on gross receipts of Rs.15 Lacs are not eligible to claim the benefit of section 44AD.

The issue is however not free from doubt  ???.

Best Regards  :)

4
Discussion / Re: Taxation of Carbon Credits
« on: September 13, 2010, 01:10:26 PM »
One of the argument:

By-product :


It can be safely concluded without any hesitation that the earning of carbon credit is primarily linked with the very activity of generation of electricity and it cannot be separated from the same under any circumstances. It can also rightly be equated with any by-product realized as a direct result of manufacturing operation which is sold / disposed off without any further process or activity. 

In view of above, the income from carbon credit should be equated / treated at par with income from sale of a by-product realized as a direct result of manufacturing operation.

There are several decisions of Supreme Court and various High court in respect of allowability of 80IA deduction in respect of income from by product generated during the course of manufacturing activity.

The Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (317 ITR 218) has observed that the provisions of section 80HH, 80I, 80IA and 80IB have the common scheme. You can therefore rely on the judicial pronouncement wherein income from sale of scrap/by-product has been held to be income derived from an eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction under section 80HH/ 80I/ 80IA/ 80IB.

All the Best

5
Discussion / Ajanta Pharma SUpreme Court decision
« on: September 13, 2010, 01:04:19 PM »
S. 115JB “book profits” have to be reduced by deduction “eligible” u/s. 80HHC & not “actual” deduction

Does it mean that the Assessee can still claim the benefit of 80HHC eligible profit in computing book profit under section 115JB as 80% deduction of eligible profit has been reduced to 0%, but there is no change in the provisions related to computation of eligible profits.

6
Discussion / Re: SECTION 80IB
« on: April 15, 2010, 06:40:49 PM »
NO, till loss from that unit in the earlier year (as a independent source) is not notionally adjusted.

Refer section 80IA(5).

Also refer Special Bench decision in the case of Gold Mine Shares 113 ITD 209.

7
Discussion / 80IA deduction on Carbon Credit
« on: March 22, 2010, 06:26:09 PM »
Dear All,

The Department is of the view that, deduction udners section 80IA is not available to a power generating unit in respect of income from sale of carbon credit relying on the recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of Liberty india (317 ITR 218).

Is comparision of earning of carbon credit with Export incentive correct/ justifiable?
 

8
Discussion / Re: Daga Capital
« on: June 02, 2009, 06:51:32 PM »
It seems that the larger bench has been referred to in the following cases fixed in Delhi:
 
"the Honorable Vice President, New Delhi while adjudicating the matter in Bench ‘F’ in the cases of GE Capital TPT Finance Services Ltd. & GE Capital Services India (ITA Nos. 3159/04, 3160/04, 2069/06, 2190/06, 3198/04 & 3200/04) has stated that the decision of ITAT Special Bench, Mumbai in case of Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. – ITA No. 8057/Mum/03 reported in 117 ITD 169 needs to be reconsidered and may be referred to the larger bench or special bench."
 
However, the same is pending before the president for his order and approval..

There are talks as to Bombay High Court been upset with the decision of Daga and will take up the matter ASAP.

In any case the decison of Daga seriously needs reconsideration.

Regards,

9
Discussion / Daga Capital
« on: June 02, 2009, 11:53:32 AM »
Dear Freinds,

Is Daga decision (SB on applicability of section 14A) been referred to larger bench ?

10
In order to avoid the confusion as to applicability of 40A(3), the Co. should account for each expenses separately incurred by the employees rather than passing a consolidated journal entry. If the entries are already passed and the matter has come up in scrutiny, the Co. should show that the it is a consolidated entry and should prove the same with sufficient documentary evidence.

11
Discussion / Re: Deduction of 80HHC u/s 115JB
« on: May 05, 2009, 01:18:33 PM »
The issue which needs consideration is whether export profit computed under section 80HHC can be deducted in computing the book profit u/s 115JB in current scenario, where 80HHC deduction is at 0% of eligible profit, considering the wordings of the relevant clause, which are reproduced as under :

"amount of profit eligible for deduction under section 80HHC" (as provided in clause(iv) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB)".


 

12
Discussion / Re: "Taxation of interest Income earned"
« on: March 18, 2009, 04:44:23 PM »
Can you please give the citation of Apex court decision on this issue.


citation of CIT Vs Tamil Nadu Invst. corporation is 240 ITR 573 (Mad).



 

 

13
Discussion / Long Term Loss - STT Paid
« on: March 10, 2009, 01:57:36 PM »
Dear Freinds,

On first principle basis, if the income is exempt from tax, even the loss is exempted from tax i.e.loss is not available for any set off.

However, can the Assessee take a stand that claiming of exemption is the previllage of the Assessee (e.g.exemption u/s 10A, courts have held that the Assessee has an option to claim the exemption). Accordingly can he have a case to claim set off of such loss.

Is there any other ground available for such a claim?

is there any specific provision in the law or an S Court rulling directly on this issue?

Best Regards,

14
Discussion / Re: Section 44AF
« on: January 21, 2009, 01:19:35 PM »
Technically it should be 5% or Actuals whcihever is higher...

15
Discussion / Re: Rule 8D
« on: December 08, 2008, 02:45:24 PM »
You are right.......they are just blindly applying the provisions of Rule 8D even if it results in the additions in excess of the expenditure????

Pages: [1] 2 3