2008 (8) TMI 576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome of Rs. 16,72,21,330. The return was pro-cessed under section 143(1) of the Act on September 24, 2005. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on October 7, 2005. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on October 31, 2006 determining the total income at Rs.17,62,36,100. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer, inter alia, rejected the claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act by excluding 90 per cent of the gross interest and commission from the profits of the business. The assessee claimed long-term capital loss in a sum of Rs. 52,38,048. The Assessing Officer restricted the same to Rs.15,19,248. The reduction in the loss was due to the increase in the de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aterials available on record.   4. The first question of law is covered by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. V. Chinnapandi [2006] 282 ITR 389 (Mad) and K. S. Subbiah Pillai and Co. (India) P. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 304 (Mad). In Chin-napandi's case [2006] 282 ITR 389 (Mad) it is held as follows (headnote) :   "Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stipulates that `pro-fits of the business' for the purpose of section 80HHC of the Act mean the profits of the business as computed under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession'. While computing such profits under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession' if any receipt by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been upheld by this court recently by order dated August 5, 2008 made in Writ Petition No. 4387 of 2003, and batch, K. R. Palanisamy v. Union of India [2008] 306 ITR 61 (Mad).   6. The explanation offered by the assessee before the assessing authority in respect of the deemed value of the two properties was that while regis-tering, the Sub-Registrar refused to release the documents except on pay-ment of higher stamp duty on enhanced valuation. Since the buyers wanted the title document to be released at the earliest, they have chosen to pay the stamp duty without contesting the same and without consulting the assessee. The assessee, as seller, did not have any locus standi in the proceedings and hence the assessee should not be....