|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 141 Records
-
2006 (10) TMI 360 - ITAT JODHPUR
Method of accounting - Estimation of profit ... ... ... ... ..... person and consequently the proceeding has to abate and the appeal would become null and void. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the evidence on record. 16. The learned Authorised Representative has vehemently submitted that Shri Mangilal died on 28-1-2002 and he has also filed a copy of death certificate on record. We have gone though the various decisions relied by the learned Authorised Representative on this point. It is true that any appeal filed against the dead person is not maintainable in ease if respondent is only one. But in this case, the fact of death of Shri Mangilal, the assessee was brought to the notice of the ITO, only after he had filed appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal shall not abate and only would amount to a curable irregularity. The revenue has corrected this mistake by filing the Legal Representatives on record. The title of the appeal is accordingly corrected. 17. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 357 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Interest, chargeable as ... ... ... ... ..... e advance tax and TDS paid by the assessee worked out at Rs. 2,01,22,225. Thus, in any case it was in excess of first two refunds aggregating to sum of Rs. 35,55,411. In this view of the situation it cannot be held that learned CIT(A) is wrong in concluding that no interest could be charged in respect of first two refunds aggregating to Rs. 35,55,411 and interest could be charged only in respect of third refund given to the assessee amounting to Rs. 3,26,37,466. Learned CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to compute interest under section 234D in respect of third refund for the period for which the excess refund has been granted to assessee i.e., 19-3-2004 till the date of regular assessment. His, this direction is in accordance with law and has to be upheld. Thus we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) and accordingly the Departmental appeal is dismissed. In the result, Departmental appeal is dismissed. 10. In the result, Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 355 - ITAT BANGALORE
Income - Deemed to accrue or arise in India ... ... ... ... ..... done in India, no portion of work is taxable in India and thus section 201 read with section 195 is not attracted in this case. 6.6 Thus, for these reasons, we follow the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of India Hotels Co. Ltd. (supra) and the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corpn. of AP ( supra) and uphold the contention of the assessee that the transaction in question is a transaction of sale and not a case of rendering technical services as contemplated under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and even otherwise no part of the service is rendered in India and thus, the assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source. Thus, this ground the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6.7 As we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on this ground, we do not propose to go into the other contentions as it would be an academic exercise. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 265 - ITAT MUMBAI
Profit in lieu of salary ... ... ... ... ..... rmination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating to employment. The ld. counsel for the assessee has tried to restrict the meaning of profit in lieu of service as relating to compensation only on termination of the service, but in our opinion the termination referred to in section 17(3)(i) would mean relinquishment of the job, either voluntarily, resignation or on attaining the superannuation. This payment has been made just after two months from relinquishment of the job. Therefore, it is closely associated with the employment. The ld. authorities below have rightly taxed this amount. At the time of hearing we have gone through the case laws relied upon the ld. counsel for the assessee and pointed out to him that none of the case law is applicable to the facts of the present case. They all are distinguishable. Thus the appeal of the assessee is devoid of any merit, it is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 264 - ITAT MUMBAI
Capital gains ... ... ... ... ..... valuation report there is no documentary evidence in the possession of Assessing Officer which can exhibit the fair valuation as on 1-4-1981 of the disputed land. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The ld. Assessing Officer shall conduct a proper enquiry and bring sufficient material on record i.e., the sale deed of the surrounding land or other potential factor influencing the fair market value of the land as on 1-4-1981. As far as the other grounds are concerned i.e., disallowance of expenses on development of this land, we find that the details submitted by the assessee have not been properly looked into, therefore, we set aside this issue also to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The charging of interest under section 234 would be consequential. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2006 (10) TMI 263 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) - concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income - claim of deduction u/s 80-IB, filed in the original return of income - HELD THAT:- The case involves genuine difference of opinion with regard to deduction provided under the statute between the assessee and the tax authorities and is thus, clearly outside the scope of Explanation 1 to section 271(1), as the assessee has made full disclosure of all the relevant facts and has acted bona fide.
The assessee has disclosed all the material facts necessary for its assessment and the only question is with regard to the interpretation of the relevant provision of law allowing deduction to the assessee upon fulfilling certain conditions laid down in the relevant provision of law. There is no material before us to suggest that the assessee has not disclosed any relevant particulars or facts before the authorities and has not acted bona fide. Thus, we hold that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which is accordingly cancelled and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
We want to make it clear that our decision is limited only with regard to the validity of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) and shall not effect the merits of claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act, which may be subject-matter of Revision Application pending before the Ld. CIT.
In view of our decision cancelling the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) in this case, the present Stay Application of the assessee becomes infructuous - In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 262 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation on a higher rate - applicable to motor car acquired - commercial vehicle - HELD THAT:- As per the IIIrd proviso to section 32 of the Act, in respect of the asset being commercial vehicle acquired between 2-10-1998 and 31-3-1999, the depreciation has to be allowed on such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed. However, for our purpose the material provision is that the actual cost of the asset so acquired would fall within that block in the year of acquisition and thereafter the W.D.V., i.e., the actual cost less depreciation allowed thereon would be material for computing depreciation in subsequent years. Thus the cost of car is to be treated as W.D.V. for computing depreciation thereon at the specified percentage.
If the provisions of Explanation to this proviso and the definition of maxi-cab and motor cab as given in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are read together then motor vehicles used for hire or reward would not be covered under this proviso to section 32 of the Act, and such motor vehicles would be covered under entry (2)(ii) of Item-3 of Part-A of Appendix-I to rule 5 of the Rules. This conclusion further leads to an interference that the Legislature has given benefit of higher depreciation to the assessees not engaged in the business of Motor Buses, Motor Lorries and Motor Taxies on hire and defining such light motor vehicles as commercial vehicles though intentionally excluding vehicles commercially exploited for yielding income from the definition of commercial vehicle further supports the case of the assessee.
Therefore, nomenclature of commercial vehicle should not be so construed to deprive the assessee of higher depreciation when all the conditions specified in the Act and the Rules have been met by the assessee. We also hold that, till such car is used by the assessee for its business purpose the assessee would get the depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent as per the IIIrd proviso to section 32 of the Act. Thus, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the assessee stand accepted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 261 - ITAT DELHI
Commissioner (Appeals) ... ... ... ... ..... er (Appeals). We are inclined to think that it is because of the lack of the necessary infrastructure available to the CIT(A) that he was unable to conduct an enquiry into the evidence in such a manner as would have been done by the Assessing Officer. This is not a simple case, but a complex one. We, therefore, hold that having regard to the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anupam Fashion Palace (supra), the CIT(A) ought to have remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for examining the evidence and to decide the issue accordingly. 14. For these reasons, we set aside the order of the CIT(A). We restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to him to examine the evidence adduced by the assessee before the CIT(A) and take a decision afresh in accordance with law. Needless to add, that the assessee shall be given adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, both the appeals are deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2006 (10) TMI 260 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income - Deemed to accrue or arise in India - non-banking finance company - nature of payment - DTAA between India Australia - whether or not the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee before us, i.e., Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, was required to withhold tax @ 15% from payment of Australian Dollars (A$) 3,25,000 made to M/s. Ford Credit Australia Limited, Australia (Australian company) - HELD THAT:- DR’s reliance on the ruling given, by the Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of ABC [1999 (4) TMI 612 - ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY], we see no need to deal with the same separately. The Assessing Officer had adopted the reasoning approved by the Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling and we have dealt with the same in the course of our consideration to the matter. The prescription of section 245S is unambiguous.
We are not inclined to disturb our conclusions merely because the conclusions arrived at above, and in the light of detailed reasons set out earlier in the order, are at variance with the conclusions arrived at in the said ruling. We have carefully perused the esteemed views of the Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling, and, with respect but without hesitation, we are not persuaded.
Hence, in our considered view, the impugned payment cannot be held to be covered by the scope of expression ‘royalty’ under article 12(3) of the India Australia DTAA. Since the Australian company admittedly does not have any permanent establishment (PE) in India, this payment cannot also be taxed as a business profit of the Australian company in India. It is so in view of the fact that article 7(1) of the applicable tax treaty specifically provides that, "The profits of the enterprises of one of the Contracting States shall only be taxable in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein". This leads us to the conclusion that the right of Indian tax jurisdiction does not extend to taxing the impugned payment of A$ 3,25,000 to the Australian company, i.e., FCAL, for specialized data processing of information furnished by the Indian company.
Having held that the Australian company, i.e., FCAL, did not have any tax liability in India, and as the tax withholding liability is only a vicarious and substitutionary liability, we also hold that the appellant before us, i.e., Indian company by the name of Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, did not have any tax withholding liability so far the payment of A $ 3,25,000 to the Australian company was concerned. The plea of the appellant is accepted.
Thus, we vacate the orders of the authorities below. We also direct the Assessing Officer to refund the taxes deposited by the appellant company, after verifying that the appellant company has not issued tax deduction at source certificate u/s 203 and, accordingly, the credit for the tax deduction at source has not been given to the Australian company in its income-tax assessment in India. The appellant will get the relief, if so admissible in law, accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 259 - ITAT DELHI
Deduction of tax at source u/s 194C Or 194J - Payment made to Clearing and Forwarding Agents (‘C&FA’) - managerial services - HELD THAT:- We found that the C&F Agents was required to store, dispose, deliver or redeliver goods as may be determined and notified to such C&F Agents by the assessee. The C&F Agents was required to store the goods by the assessee with all care, prudence and responsibility so that such goods are free from risks as theft, pilferage and damages. We also found that C&F Agents was liable for all damages, pilferage and other losses incurred due to negligence, etc., and undertake to pay on demand in writing made by the assessee without protest the market value of the goods entrusted to such agents. The goods of the assessee was to be received and held by the C&F Agents as bailee/trustee, for and on behalf of the assessee.
Thus, it is crystal clear from the terms of the agreement that payment was made by the assessee to the C&F Agents, was for consolidated set of services which have been broadly described. The main object of the agreement was to ensure correct handling and delivery of goods as per the terms of the assessee. We found that as per the nature of services rendered, the same are in pari materia to the services as contemplated u/s 194C, and the same was not for any professional or technical services as mentioned u/s 194J of the Act.
Thus, any payment of any sum shall be liable for deduction of tax only under one section, therefore, payment is also liable for tax deduction only under one section, as warranted by the nature of services stipulated therein. Combined reading of provisions of sections 194C and 194J vis-a-vis C.B.D.T. Circular makes it abundantly clear that in the instant case payment made by the assessee to the C&F Agents, was for the services which was pre-dominantly for "carrying out work", inter alia, relating to storage despatch, transportation, loading and unloading of goods, etc. Thus, the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source u/s 194C of the Act.
Hence, we are inclined to agree with the learned AR that assessee was not in default for deduction of tax as per provisions of section 194C at the rate of 2 per cent and that lower authorities were not justified for treating the services rendered to the assessee as falling u/s 194J of the Act and thereby liable for deduction of tax at 5%.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee in all the years are allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 258 - ITAT COCHIN
Depreciation, Business expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... of the Assessing Officer. 10. In this case, it is not disputed that the assessee has constructed a strong room for its business in the rented premises. The assessee rsquo s claim is supported by the following precedents mdash (i) CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. 1998 233 ITR 468 (SC). (ii) CIT v. Mehta Transport Co. 1986 160 ITR 35 (Guj.). (iii) Standard Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1990 181 ITR 233 (Bom.). On the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the construction of the strong room is a revenue expenditure and same is allowable as claimed by the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the said expenditure. 11. The assessee has taken one more ground in respect of deduction of legal expenses but the same is not pressed. Hence ground No. 4 taken by the assessee stands dismissed. 12. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 257 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... egard to the demand under section 201(1) because in that judgment, the facts are different. In that case, tax was deducted by the employer under section 192 but was not deposited and under these facts, it was held that the assessee is an assessee in default and also liable for interest under section 201(1A). We, therefore, decide the issue with regard to section 201(1) in favour of the assessee and the issue with regard to interest liability under section 201(1A) does not survive. 7. In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. 8. Now, we take up the remaining four appeals of the assessee and four appeals of the revenue. 9. The issues involved are identical in these appeals and the only difference is regarding amount and hence, as per our decision in assessment year 1998-99 as per para Nos. 6 and 7 above, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed and all four appeals of the revenue are dismissed on the same line.
-
2006 (10) TMI 256 - ITAT, DELHI
Charitable or Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... f the view that the assessee is entitled to its registration. Thus, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed. 8. Coming to the issue of condonation of delay, the case of the assessee was that the same occurred due to lack of knowledge of Fiscal Laws on part of the assessee. However, when the omission of section 10(20A) was brought to its notice by the Collector, it took urgent steps by seeking legal advise and filed the application on 1-10-2003. Similar issue had come up for adjudication before Hon rsquo ble Tribunal in the case of Market Committee (supra). It was held that circumstances, as enumerated above, should not come in the way of granting retrospective registration. We are of the view that the delay was on account of bona fide reason beyond the knowledge of the assessee. Therefore, it is held that the assessee ought to have been granted registration with effect from 1-4-2002. Thus, ground No. 9 is also allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above.
-
2006 (10) TMI 255 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of car expenses - incurred as partner of the partnership firm - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income - theory of apportionment - HELD THAT:- We find that car expenses have been incurred by the assessee either for the purpose of partnership business or for personal use. The source of business income is only one. Travelling in the car is either for personal use or for the purpose of his profession in the partnership. Therefore, in our opinion, it has to be held that car was used for the purpose of his profession which generated income partly exempt u/s 10(2A) and partly taxable. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that car was used only for earning remuneration from the partnership firm cannot be accepted. Similarly, other expenses related to the profession carried on by him and therefore, related to both types of income.
Theory of apportionment - In our view, it would be reasonable to apportion the expenditure on the basis of the ratio of the income which is exempted and the income which is taxable. In the present case, a chart has been given in the statement of facts filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). According to this chart, the exempted income u/s 10(2A), while the remuneration received from the firm which is taxable as stated in the assessment order. Therefore, it would be reasonable to disallow on pro rata basis.
The Order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the disallowance accordingly. However, it is, clarified that assessee himself has disallowed 20% for personal use and therefore, the disallowance u/s 14A is to be made with reference to the balance 80% of the expenditure.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed while the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 254 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment order u/s 143(3) - additional income - survey proceedings u/s 133A - HELD THAT:- Once every purchase is collated with the sale thereof in terms of quantum as well as value, no further burden remains to be discharged by the assessee unless any discrepancy or falsity is pointed out in such collation. The Assessing Officer has not raised even a finger of doubt at this account statement furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. That being so the only course open to the Assessing Officer was to accept the disclosed trading results.
We are therefore satisfied that in the instant case the assessee has been able to discharge the heavy burden that rested upon him while retracting from offer of additional income at the time of survey. As we have pointed out earlier even at that stage the case of the assessee was that the offer was made to buy peace and not because of any concealment of income or discrepancy in accounts detected by survey authorities.
Thus, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) - In the result, this appeal is allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 253 - ITAT MUMBAI
Ad hoc disallowance u/s 14A - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income - HELD THAT:- Section 14A clearly makes a distinction between exempt income and taxable income. It treats both of them as separate classes for computation of income after allocation of expenditure relating thereto and mandates that no deduction in respect of any expenditure shall be allowed against taxable income which is incurred in relation to exempt income. The underlying object is to compute both the exempt income and taxable income correctly, which is possible only after the expenditure incurred in relation thereto is allocated to them.
Hence, we hold that all expenses connected with the exempt income have to be disallowed u/s 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. In this connection, the provisions of sub-section (2)/(3) of section 14A inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 deserve to be noted.
The procedure for computation of disallowance has now been provided in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A of the Income-tax Act. It is no longer open to the Assessing Officer to apply his discretion in computing the disallowance or make ad hoc disallowance u/s 14A. Substantive provisions are contained in sub-section (1) of section 14A prohibiting deduction in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income while procedural provisions regarding computation of the aforesaid disallowance are contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof. Sub-sections (2) and (3) seek to achieve the underlying object of section 14A(1) that any expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income should not be allowed deduction. It is fairly well-settled by a catena of decisions that procedural provisions apply to all pending matters and that the rule against retrospectivity does not hit them.
Thus, we hold that the provisions for quantification of disallowance as contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A are procedural and therefore apply to all pending matters. It is no longer open to the Assessing Officer to make disallowance according to his own discretion or on ad hoc basis. He is statutorily required to compute the disallowance in the manner provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A.
We therefore set aside the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer in this behalf and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in the light of the provisions of section 14A including sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof.
Capital gain on sale of shares - sell to subsidiary company - HELD THAT:- It cannot be laid down as inflexible rule that subsequent events can never be considered for deciding a matter under dispute. It is the duty of the assessee to pay correct amount of tax on its income chargeable to tax. It is the right of the department to realize tax from the assessees on their income chargeable to tax. Subsequent events in the case before us would relate back to the assessment year under consideration.
In our view, the matter should go back to the Assessing Officer with the direction to consider and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground No. 3 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Thus, Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 252 - ITAT DELHI
Deduction of tax at source ... ... ... ... ..... of tax on these payments, we find that it has been repeatedly held by the Tribunal in the aforesaid judgments that wherever a debate is needed on a particular claim, the assessee may have a bona fide belief in this regard. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee has bona fide belief with regard to these allowances which were claimed to be the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the assessee and according to the provisions of section 201 once the assessee made this short deduction of tax or did not deduct tax under a bona fide belief, the provision of section 201 cannot be invoked and additional tax cannot be charged against the assessee. From any angle if the case is viewed, it is fit case in which additional tax and interest under section 201(1A) cannot be charged. We therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the additional tax and interest charged against the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 251 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... igible in respect of profits derived from the business of trading of products of other concerns as the same does not qualify to constitute the profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking. Therefore, having regard to the legal position as enunciated by the Hon rsquo ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Liberty Shoes Ltd. ( supra), the action of the Assessing Officer deserves to be upheld in denying claim of deduction under section 80-IA with respect to the profits and gains derived by the assessee from trading of goods. As a result the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and that of the Assessing Officer is hereby restored. 8. Since the facts and circumstances in the appeals for the assessment year 1998-99 in ITA No. 565/Chandi./01 and for the assessment year 2000-01 in ITA No. 639/Chandi./04 stand on identical footing, our decision in the assessment year 1997-98 squarely applies in these two appeals also. As a result, all the appeals of the revenue are allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 250 - ITAT MUMBAI
Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income - section 14A are not applicable to the expenditure incurred in relation to earning of dividend income? - disallowance of the interest paid - investment in shares dividend - exempt u/s 10(33) - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that part of the borrowed money was utilized for the purpose of investment in shares, from which dividend income is received, which is exempt from tax. In view of the decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Harish Krishnakant Bhatt [2004 (8) TMI 342 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] the expenditure being the interest on borrowed capital for the purpose of investment in shares dividend from which is exempt u/s 10(33) of the I.T. Act is not to be allowed as an expenditure in view of the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act.
The interest on borrowings attributable to investments made in foreign companies is to be considered for allowance u/s 57(iii) of the I.T. Act and the same shall be considered by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee has also utilized part of the borrowings raised during the year for investment made in units of growth fund. The claim being of investment in growth plan, no income from which is received from year-to-year and the annual accretions are added to the NAV of the growth fund without any distribution of income which is taxable in the hands of the assessee-company for the year under consideration.
In view of the facts that the income from such investments is not amenable to tax, the interest on such borrowings utilized for making investments in the units of the growth fund is not allowable as an expenditure in view of the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act.
The issue at length was also considered by Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Macintosh Finance Estate Ltd.’s case [2006 (2) TMI 578 - ITAT MUMBAI] and it was held that interest expenses cannot allowed to be added to the cost of investment. Therefore, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Disallowance on total administrative and other expenses - HELD THAT:- We find from the perusal of the administrative expenses that no expenditure is directly relatable to the earning of dividend income and there is no merit in making ad hoc disallowance of portion of the expenditure being attributable to earning of dividend income. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer not to disallow any expenditure towards earning of dividend income.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 249 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... are attributable to its regular business activity of packing and forwarding and the rest of it is definitely for the usage and exploitation of registered trademark. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80-O after reducing from the above figure 25 per cent which is attributable to normal profits of its packaging and forwarding business. The balance will be treated as profits eligible for deduction under section 80-O of the Act. We are required to do this exercise because we do not accept the plea of the assessee that the entire profits are eligible for exploitation of the registered trademark. The Assessing Officer will be free to examine the correctness of the revised working extracted above with reference to the books of account of the assessee. The assessee, if so required by the Assessing Officer, shall produce all the evidence in support of the working made out by it. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
........
|
