Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

CIT vs. Jyoti Prakash Dutta (Bombay High Court)
September, 01st 2014

S. 80-IB: An “industrial undertaking” can be formed by taking P&M on hire. Not necessary for the assessee to “own” the P&M. Dept’s tendency to try to unsettle matters strongly disapproved

The assessee, a film producer, claimed deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of the profits from his film called ‘Border’. The AO, relying on Textile Machinery Corp 107 ITR 195, denied the claim for deduction on the ground that as the assessee did not own any plant & machinery, he was not an “industrial undertaking” u/s 80-IB(2)(ii). However, the CIT(A) & Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) The argument of the department that if an assessee does not own plant and machinery, it cannot be an industrial undertaking is extreme and misconceived. S. 80-IB permits an undertaking to be formed by ‘hire’ of plant and machinery and does not require the assessee to own the same. A film production unit formed by engaging cameraman, editor, sound technicians and using their equipments for filming, processing, sound recording and mixing machines on contract basis is an “industrial undertaking” eligible for s. 80-IB deduction (D.K. Kondke 192 ITR 128 (Bom) followed, Textile Machinery Corp 107 ITR (SC) distinguished);

(ii) It is unfortunate that the department does not maintain the rule of consistency and instead disobeys it. As the Tribunal had for the earlier years decided the issue in favour of the assessee and the High Court had dismissed the department’s appeals, the Revenue ought not to have filed an appeal for the present year. We strongly disapprove of the attempt to canvass extreme arguments so as to take a chance and try to unsettle the settled matters and things. This tendency has to be curbed and we must come down heavily on parties to curb it, may it be the Revenue.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting