Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 79 - HC - Income TaxDepreciation on temporary structures of amul parlours – Held that:- As per the agreement between the assessee and AUDA - The assessee had a limited right to use the land for the limited purpose and the limited period – Relying upon the decision in Commissioner of Income tax v. Madras Auto Service (P) ltd. [1998 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] - The asset which was created belonged to somebody else and the company derived an enduring business advantage by expending the amount. In all these cases, the expenses have been looked upon as having been made for the purpose of conducting the business of the assessee more profitably or more successfully - The expenditure on such asset should be looked upon as revenue expenditure. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80G(2)(d) even if the conditions under section 80G(5C)(iii) have not been fulfilled by the trust – Held that:- The donee did not utilise the funds or transfer it to the Prime Minister Relief’s Fund as provided in subsection (5C) of section 80G - By virtue of combined reading of section 80G (5C) read with explanation 2 read with subsection( 3) of section 12, a situation would arise where if any breach of conditions contained in subsection (5C), the effect thereof would be on the donee trust not fulfilling those conditions - As provided in subsection( 3) of section 12, in terms of clause(1) of explanation 2, it would not have any effect on the deduction to which the assessee is otherwise entitled to on such donation - The tribunal has held in the impugned judgement that if the donor is also taxed (along with taxing the same amount in the hands of donee), there would be a case of double taxation – Decided against Revenue.
|