|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1510 Records
-
2015 (1) TMI 1379
Determining the arm's length price of the international transaction of software development services rendered to the associated enterprises - Held that:- Assessee is providing of software development services, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Disallowance on account of application of section 43B - Held that:- Payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund could not be disallowed u/s 43B. See CIT vs. M/s Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
-
2015 (1) TMI 1378
Disallowance in respect of reimbursement of telephone and mobile expenses - Held that:- As per rule 3(8) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, reimbursement of telephone expenses is not to be treated as perquisite in the hands of the employees with effect from the assessment year 2002-03. The hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. v. CIT [2001 (7) TMI 70 - GUJARAT High Court] held that in a case of corporate entity, no disallowance can be made on account of personal use by the director/employees. Respectfully following the proposition we do not find any merit in the disallowance made in respect of reimbursement of telephone and mobile expenses.
Disallowance being one-third of the entertainment expenses - Held that:- We found that in normal business parlance on Diwali and other festive occasions, gifts are distributed to various customers and clients, however, no receipt for such gifts are taken. The Assessing Officer declined the claim of deduction merely on the plea that no third party evidence had been obtained, is not a valid reason for disallowance. Keeping in view the fact that the assessee had furnished full details of expenses along with supporting bills, vouchers, there is no reason for making such ad hoc disallowance. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the expenses
Ad hoc disallowance being one-fifth of the foreign travel expenses - Held that:- The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had furnished all the details as requested by the Assessing Officer including the name of the employee, place visited, purpose of the visit, etc., in respect of the foreign travel. The purpose of visit of the employees was to attend business meetings, fairs and exhibitions, training, etc. It was further clarified that the expenses incurred were only on its employees and did not include any expenses incurred on the relatives of the employees. As the travel expenses are genuine expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and are revenue in nature and hence should be allowed as deductible expenses under section 37(1) of the Act.
Disallowance of foreign exchange loss on forward exchange contracts entered by the assessee - Held that:- The transaction entered by the assessee is on revenue account, i.e., to safeguard itself from potential risks arising from foreign currency fluctuations in respect of payments for the imported raw materials. Since the payment was on revenue account, AO is directed to allow the loss incurred on revenue account under section 37(1) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of commission expenses - Held that:- confirmation for rendering services and receipt of payment by the persons, who rendered services was not filed before the lower authorities nor even before us. Had the assessee filed such confirmation before the Tribunal, we would have restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for taking cognizance of such confirmation. In the absence of such confirmation for rendering services and receipt of commission income, expenses claimed on account of commission cannot be allowed. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1377
Public auction conducted by the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA") - Appellant made the highest bid and deposited being 25% of the bid amount, with the DDA, this being earnest money under the terms of the conditions of auction - granting the extension of time to bidders for depositing the remaining amount of 75% - recovery of damages and recovery of the earnest amount seeked - breach of contract on the part of the Appellant - Held that:- In cases where a public auction is held, forfeiture of earnest money may take place even before an agreement is reached, as DDA is to accept the bid only after the earnest money is paid. In the present case, under the terms and conditions of auction, the highest bid (along with which earnest money has to be paid) may well have been rejected. In such cases, Section 74 may not be attracted on its plain language because it applies only "when a contract has been broken".
In the present case, forfeiture of earnest money took place long after an agreement had been reached. It is obvious that the amount sought to be forfeited on the facts of the present case is sought to be forfeited without any loss being shown. In fact it has been shown that far from suffering any loss, DDA has received a much higher amount on re-auction of the same plot of land.
The expression "whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby" means that where it is possible to prove actual damage or loss, such proof is not dispensed with. It is only in cases where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove that the liquidated amount named in the contract, if a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, can be awarded. Section 74 will apply to cases of forfeiture of earnest money under a contract. Where, however, forfeiture takes place under the terms and conditions of a public auction before agreement is reached, Section 74 would have no application.
The Division Bench has gone wrong in principle. As has been pointed out above, there has been no breach of contract by the Appellant. Further, we cannot accept the view of the Division Bench that the fact that the DDA made a profit from re-auction is irrelevant, as that would fly in the face of the most basic principle on the award of damages - namely, that compensation can only be given for damage or loss suffered. If damage or loss is not suffered, the law does not provide for a windfall.
Mr. Sharan submitted that in case we were against him, the earnest money that should be refunded should only be refunded with 7% per annum and not 9% per annum interest as was done in other cases. We are afraid we are not able to agree as others were offered the refund of earnest money way back in 1989 with 7% per annum interest which they accepted. The DDA having chosen to fight the present Appellant tooth and nail even on refund of earnest money, when there was no breach of contract or loss caused to it, stands on a different footing. We, therefore, turn down this plea as well.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Single Judge is restored
-
2015 (1) TMI 1376
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) - adherence to condition of completion - assessee did not submit completion certificate from Competent Authority which according to the opinion of AO and Ld. CIT(A) is CIDCO - Held that:- The assessee had not only submitted the project completion certificate issue by the Gram Panchayat but also various evidences to show that the project was completed by 31/03/2008 and these evidences have also been described in para 3.4 of this order.
In our opinion it will not be relevant to go into much detail for this issue as it is clear from the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. CHD Developers [2014 (1) TMI 1542 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Housing Construction (2012 (11) TMI 588 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) that such condition of submission of completion certificate was not applicable to the projects which have been approved by the Public Authority before 31/3/2005. In the present case the project was approved for commencement vide letter of CIDCO dated 05/03/2004. Thus, the project was approved for commencement before 31/3/2005 and old law will apply when it was not a condition precedent to submit completion certificate. Thus we hold that deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) cannot be denied to the assessee for want of completion certificate from CIDCO. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1375
Input tax credit - grievance of the petitioner is that the excess I.T. amount has got to be adjusted against outstanding tax due amount - Held that: - since the respondent has not adjusted the excess tax amount, while setting aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2014, the respondent is directed to make assessment afresh in accordance with provisions of the Act by permitting the petitioner to avail the ITC on the excess of tax amount, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1374
Penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition of interest income - non recognizing the interest on the loans granted by respective erstwhile amalgamating companies - Held that:- During the year under consideration there was an amalgamation of various entities with the assessee. The assessee has explained the reasons for not recognizing the interest on the loans granted by respective erstwhile amalgamating companies in Note No.14 of notes of accounts. Similarly, the assessee has also given reasons for not making the provision for the interest on the loans taken by the erstwhile amalgamating companies in Note-13 of notes of account.
AO has made the addition in respect of interest income by reproducing a wrong note No.13 instead of relevant note being note No.14. When the assessee has adopted a uniform policy and approach in respect of interest expenditure as well as interest income, then the claim of the assessee in not recognizing the interest income would not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has furnished the relevant explanation as well as details and the addition was made by the AO on the basis of explanation of the assessee in the notes of accounts therefore, not accepting the claim as well as the explanation of the assessee would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income attracting the penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1373
Canceling the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 - Held that:- Order u/s 263, passed by the ld. Commissioner, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal [2012 (3) TMI 610 - ITAT MUMBAI], wherein allowed the appeal of the assessee canceling the order of the ld. Commissioner, which was later on affirmed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (2013 (1) TMI 955 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue that the Department has challenged the order of the Tribunal is automatically answered, therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1372
Release of Consignment - import of Canola Oil – Labels not in conformity with Packaging and Labelling Regulations - Held that: - the decision in the case of Dalmia Continental Private Limited Versus Food Safety and Standards Authority of India & Another [2015 (9) TMI 454 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - No ground for interference is made out in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - SLP dismissed.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1371
Authorization being issued u/s 132A - Investigating Officer to handover 42 gunny bags i.e. the Muddamal, which have been seized during the investigation of the FIR being C.R.No.I31 of 2013 registered with Jahangirpura Police Station, Surat, to the Income Tax Authority - Held that:- Nowhere the petitioner has requested before this Court in those petitions that certified copies of the documents lying in 42 gunny bags are required to defend the trial in which he is one of the accused i.e. the case arising out of C.R.No.I37 of 2013. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that if the certified copies of the documents lying in 42 gunny bags are not supplied to the petitioner then prejudice would be caused to him in the trial wherein he is one of the accused, is required to be rejected.
Prima facie, from the observations of the learned Sessions Court, it appears that the custody of the said amount of cash is not given to the Income Tax Department because it is not the Muddamal and the said cash is required to prove the case against the accused. At this stage, clarify that the decision of the learned Sessions Court rendered on 16.01.2015 referred by the petitioner is not under challenge before this Court at this stage and therefore it is not proper for me to make any comment with regard to the observations made by the learned Sessions Court. However, it is of the opinion that in view of the fact that the said cash is required to prove the case against the accused learned Special Public Prosecutor has taken the objection and therefore it cannot be said that the learned Special Public Prosecutor is taking different stand. Thus, the said contention of the petitioner is also required to be discarded.
Thus learned Sessions Court has not committed any error much less the error of law, which calls for the interference of this Court by exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. Notice discharged.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1370
Addition on interest income on Non-Performing Assets - Held that:- Identical controversy has been considered by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. The Omerga Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. vide order [2014 (12) TMI 355 - ITAT PUNE]. In the said precedent, the Tribunal considered the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.[2010 (11) TMI 88 - Delhi High Court] as well as the judgement in the case of CIT vs. Sakthi Finance Ltd.(2013 (3) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT), which had expressed divergent views with respect to the issue of accrual of interest income on NPA advances; and, following the proposition that in the absence of any judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court, there being contrary judgements of the non-jurisdictional High Courts, a decision which was favourable to the assessee was to be followed in view of the reasoning laid down in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., (1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court) and, thus the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1369
Deduction u/s 80IA - assessee had set off losses from wind mill operation against income generated from non-eligible businesses - Held that:- CIT(A) held that the provisions of sec. 80IA(5) treating the undertaking as a separate source of income cannot be applied to a year prior to the year in which the assessee opted to claim relief u/s 80IA for the first time. Accordingly CIT(A) held that the losses of earlier years cannot be notionally brought forward to be set off against current year’s income, since the current year is the initial assessment year in which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed.
Since the Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT [2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court] we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on this issue. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (1) TMI 1368
Registration u/s 12AA(e)(iv) r.w.s 12A rejected - absence of "dissolution clause" in trust deed - Held that:- We find the judgment of the Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of Self Employers Service Society (2000 (9) TMI 47 - KERALA High Court) is decided on the facts of the said trust generating the income and not undertaking any charitable work. Thus, the same is distinguishable.
In the present case, assessee is yet to commence its activities and therefore, the assessee cannot be described as undertaking the activities for generating income only. Regarding the dissolution clause noting is brought on record even before us that the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 mandates for incorporation of mandatory clause of dissolution of any irrevocable trust. Therefore, in our opinion, the decision of the DIT (E) rejecting the registration u/s 12A is required to be reversed. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1367
Declining registration u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) - appellant is a society engaged in imparting education - Held that:- The relevant determinative factor for conferring registration is the object of the society and the quantum of profits/ surplus is an irrelevant factor. In the present case, admittedly and undisputedly appellant society is imparting education. And education per-se is a charitable object u/s 2(15) of the Act. The basis of impugned action to regard the society as commercial at the stage of registration on the basis of expenditure incurred on advertisement and publicity is unwarranted and against the settled interpretation of the statute.
As held by the Apex Court in American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute (2008 (5) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) the character of the recipient of the income must have the character of educational institution is to be determined irrespective of the profits. In view of the above we reverse the order of the CIT and direct it to grant registration u/s 12A of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1366
Denial of claim of exemption by Notification No. 24/04-ST dated 10.9.04 - Voluntary training and coaching in the field of 1) Business 2) Fashion Technology 3) Advertisement and Graphic Design 4) Media 5) Hospitality and 6) Hospital Administration - the decision in the case of M/s WLC COLLEGE INDIA LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI [2012 (7) TMI 25 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] contested - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Ashu Export Promoters (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service tax, New Delhi [2011 (11) TMI 387 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that the training provided by the assessee in this case amounted to “vocational training” within the meaning of the term under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1365
Maintainability of appeal - Whether the two appeals against the lower revisional Court's acquittal and reversal judgments are not maintainable and this Court cannot sit otherwise against the impugned acquittal revision Judgments, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and otherwise on merits and with what observations and conclusions? - Held that: - once there is a bar for second revision, it is to consider if appeal won't lie, whether to decide as a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - the power of revision to entertain by High Court, even taken away under any of the provisions of Cr.P.C. that can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - even revision or appeal is a bar by virtue of any of the specific provisions of Cr.P.C. the High Court's inherent power can be exercised in deciding the matter before it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. within its scope; that is not a bar from what is discussed supra from several and settled expressions of the Apex Court to decide the two appeals on merits by taking the same under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for otherwise not maintainable under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. or proviso to Section 372 amended Cr.P.C.
The reversal and acquittal judgments of the lower revisional Court by sitting against the conviction judgments of the trial Court are unsustainable and outcome of ill appreciation of facts and law that resulted grave injustice to the complainant-bank and the same is prone to the jurisdiction of this Court by way of appeal under Section 378(4) read with Section 378(1)(b) and (3) and otherwise under Section 372 and its proviso read with Section 2(w)(a) and otherwise within inherent power of this Court saved by the Section 482 Cr.P.C., for this Court to set aside the said revision Court reversal judgments to secure ends of justice being necessary.
The two appeals taken under Section 482 Cr.P.C. from otherwise if not maintainable either under Section 378(4) or under Section 372 amended Cr.P.C. and the lower revision Court's acquittal judgments are set aside by restoring the trial Court's conviction judgments - appeal disposed off.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1364
Validity of reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - justification that the assessee purchased shares of other companies - Held that:- Admittedly, there is no material on record to suggest that the assessee purchased and sold shares of Esasr Oil, Jai Corporation, etc. The figure of ₹ 4,18,437/- is not tallying with any material on record which amply prove that the AO had mechanically issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Similar mistake was committed by the CIT(A) by reproducing the grounds of appeal of some other assessee while passing the order, which amply shows that both the authorities below had not applied their minds to the facts of the case. Since the AO issued notice without proper recording of his satisfaction that he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, it is of the firm view that reopening of assessment is bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1363
TPA - comparable selection technique - Held that:- The Assessee focuses on delivering semiconductor solutions for communications to the home, enterprise and mobile markets. Their product portfolio includes: Bluetooth, short-range wireless products for PC, Mobile phones, PDAs, Keyboards, mice and automotive electronics, thus companies functinally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comparability.
Computation of deduction u/s.10A - telecommunication charges, consultancy charges, repairs and maintenance and certain other expenses incurred by the Assessee (including expenses incurred in foreign currency) are to be excluded from export turnover on the ground that these expenses (except telecommunication charges) are not incurred in rendering technical services rendered to clients outside India - Held that:- It would be just and appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to exclude telecommunication charges, consultancy charges, repairs and maintenance and certain other expenses incurred by the Assessee (including expenses incurred in foreign currency), both from export turnover and total turnover, as has been prayed for by the assessee
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance of interest expenses invoking the provisions of Sec.40(a)(i) - non deduction of tds - DTAA between India and Singapore - Held that:- As rendered in the context of taxation of interest income in the hands of the non-resident and are not in the context of point of time at which obligation to deduct tax at source lies on the person making payment to a non-resident. We agree with the submission of the learned DR that the said decisions are therefore not relevant to the facts of the present case. We therefore hold that disallowance u/s.40(a)(i)of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified. The quantum of sum to be disallowed as we have already stated is to be decided by the AO afresh in view of the discussion on the issue raised in ground no.9 in the earlier part of this order.
Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) - assessee failed to deduct at source and pay tax in respect of payments made to contractors for carrying out work u/s. 194C and in respect of payments for professional services rendered u/s. 194J - Held that:- The addition was made by the AO on the assumption that rate of tax for TDS on Fees for FTS is 10%. The AO grossed up tax deductible of ₹ 53,579 at 10 times and arrived at a figure of ₹ 5,35,790. After deducting this sum of ₹ 5,35,790 from ₹ 9,55,062, the AO arrived at a further disallowance of ₹ 4,22,867. This is shown in the chart given in the earlier part of this order in the last two columns. The AO thus proceeded on a wrong assumption that amount disallowed by the assessee in the return of income u/s. 40(a)(ia) was incorrect, whereas the amount disallowed by the Assessee was correct. It is this addition that is subject matter of dispute between the assessee and Revenue raised in concise ground No.10. According to the assessee, it is a double addition and the figure of ₹ 4,22,867 has been arrived at in the manner set out in the table given in the earlier paragraph of this order.
We have seen the computation of total income in the return filed by the assessee as also in the order of assessment and are of the view that the further disallowance of ₹ 4,22,867 u/s. 40(a)(ia) is uncalled for, as the assessee has already in its computation of total income, disallowed the correct figure of ₹ 9,55,060 to be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) and a further disallowance of ₹ 4,22,867 is without any basis. The said addition is therefore hereby deleted. Concise ground No.10 is allowed.
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) & 40(a)(i) - Upholding the action of providing relief u/s 10A on the profits of business in returned income instead of assessed profits (i.e., after adjustments are made to the profit on account of short and non-deduction of TDS - Held that:- The action of the AO was not justified. The Tribunal held that under s. 80AB the income that is derived from the eligible business must be computed in accordance with the provisions of ss.30 to 43D, as provided in s. 29. Sec.29 provides that the income chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gains of business” “shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in s.30 to 43D”. The Tribunal held that unquestionably, s. 40(a)(ia) is a section falling between ss. 30 to 43D and therefore effect must be given to the same in computing the profits and gains derived from the eligible business, which in that case was a housing project. The Tribunal further held that while giving effect to the computation provisions contained in ss. 30 43D one should not be bogged down by the theory that the disallowed expenditure cannot be considered as profits ‘derived” from the housing project or as “operational profits. The above ruling of the Tribunal, in our view, would squarely apply to the present case also. Similar is the ruling rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Keval Construction (2013 (7) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT).
-
2015 (1) TMI 1362
Delay in condonation in filing revision - Held that: - The work of no department can be left unattended only for the reason that there is shortage of employees or that the officer has not been posted - the delay in filing the revision goes totally unexplained - revision dismissed, delay being not condonable.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1361
Disallowance of provision for Leave Encashment - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case restored the matter to the file of AC with a direction to adjudicate the same as per decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd (2008 (9) TMI 921 - SUPREME COURT)
Addition u/s 14A - disallowance on account of interest - Held that:- As observed that assessee’s investment in shares and securities from which assessee has earned tax free income is much less than the share capital and reserve and surplus. Therefore, the contention of the assessee is required to be accepted and it is held that no disallowance on account of interest was called for. Accordingly, addition of ₹ 2,69,620/- is deleted and disallowance is sustained only for a sum of ₹ 2,00,484/-. This ground is partly allowed.
Deduction on account of provisions of warranty - Held that:- The deduction claimed by the assessee on account of the provisions for warranty is concerned, that is fully covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (P) Ltd (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
Additional depreciation on Fan & Air Conditioners - claim disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the reason that they are not related to manufacturing activities - Held that:- The finding of the fact by the CIT (A) is that the Fans and Air Conditioners on which disallowance has been made are installed in the factory premises and these findings are not dislodged by the Revenue. In this view of the situtation, we see no infirmity in the deletion of disallowance and we decline to interfere - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1360
Transfer pricing adjustment - selection of comparables - Held that:- Assessee being a software development company,thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Deduction u/s 10A computation - Held that:- Vis-à-vis the expenditure of foreign travel we are of the opinion that the definition of “export turnover” given in clause-iv of Explanation to Section 10A of the Act, does not give room to the interpretation sought by the assessee. Assessee has no case that such expenditure was not incurred in foreign exchange for providing technical services outside India. However, its claim that foreign travel expenditure as well as telecommunication expenses once excluded from the export turnover have also to be excluded from the total turnover, while computing the deduction u/s 10A of the IT Act, is acceptable in view of the decision of the Honble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd., (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). We therefore, direct the AO to exclude these amounts from the total turnover, while computing the eligible deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Claim of expenditure relating to lease rental income - suh rental income was considered as part of income from other sources - Held that:- We find from the records that assessee had made such a claim before the DRP in its submissions. If the assessee had incurred expenditure for earning lease rental income which was considered under the head” Income from other sources” then the expenditure incurred by it for earning such income will have to be allowed under section 57(iii) of the Act. However, the claim of the assessee needs to be examined by the AO. We are of the opinion that the issue has to be considered by the AO and appropriate relief to be given to the assessee, if it is eligible according to law. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
9911796707
