Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.31 seconds)Section 80P in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Two Ors on 1 July, 1985
The balance sheet as well as
p&l account were available in all the years that the A.O. gave these figures on
which the ld. CIT(A) relied upon, had taken from either balance sheet or p&l
account. Thus, there is no additional evidence submitted by the appellant
before the CIT(A) in A.Y. 2006-07. We dismiss the appeal on ground no.1 in
A.Y. 06-07. Further the A.O. considered Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in
Distributors (baroda) P. Ltd. vs. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC),
wherein, it was held that deduction u/s.80M is to be calculated with reference
to amount on dividend computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act
and forming on the gross total income and not with reference to full amount of
dividend received by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision is
squarely applicable on deduction under any Section in Chapter VIA and is to
be allowed on the net income. However, in the assessee's case, interest
expenses were incurred for acquiring debenture, deposit with member
society, Fix Deposit of member society, employee saving accounts , interest
on over draft facilitate from bank and bank commission, which was claimed by
the appellant u/s. 80P(2)(d)(a)(i). For the sake of convenience, we are
reproducing Sections as under:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Karnal Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. on 23 April, 1999
iv. CIT vs. Haryana Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [1989] 180 ITR 631
(Punj. & Har.), deposit with co-operative bank for short, period and interest
earned on it is qualified for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Kribhco on 18 July, 2012
v. CIT vs. KRIBHCO [2012] 349 ITR 618 (Delhi), disallowance of
expenditure incurred in earning of non taxable income difference between
exemption and special deduction. Section 14A is not applicable in case of
special deduction given under chapter VIA.
Amway India Enterprises vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 February, 2008
7. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal by observing that the computer
peripherals purchase and put to use by the appellant society or the part and
parcel of the electric data processing unit i.e. computer hardware the rate of
depreciation is allowable @ 60%. By relied on the ITAT (SB), Delhi in case of
Amway India Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT, (2008) 111 ITD (SB) (Del.), wherein
depreciation @ 60% on the items of EDP unit purchased and put to use were
I T A No s . 3 67 & 3 38 6/ A hd /1 0 & 17 3 9/ A h d/ 20 11
A . Y. 0 6- 0 7, 0 7- 08 & 0 8- 0 9 Page 14
printers and other hardware peripherals which cannot be, by stretch of any
imagination, said to be the electrical goods. The Sr. D.R. again heavily relied
on the order of the A.O. and ld. Counsel for the appellant on the order of the
CIT(A). The facts and circumstances of the case show that these computer
items cannot be used for the purpose of business without peripherals which is
the composite item and cannot be segregated. Thus, we confirm the order of
the CIT(A).