AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 1976-77 on June 30, 1976, declaring an income of Rs. 64,01,770. The return for the assessment year 1977-78 was filed on July 30,1977, declaring an income of Rs. 1,28,77,730. The assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 was completed vide order dated July 10, 1980, determining the total income at Rs. 1,05,41,160. Similarly, assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 was completed vide order dated August 18, 1980, at an income of Rs. 1,54,52,630. The difference in the assessed income and the returned income was on account of certain additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short "the CIT(A)"), which were partly allowed vide orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xpenditure on provision of cars to them at Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 20,000, respectively. The assessee's claim that for the purpose of section 40(c)(i) of the Act, the perquisite value as determined under rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and not the actual expenditure should have been taken into account, has been accepted by the Tribunal. This issue stands settled by the apex court in CIT v. British Bank of Middle East [2001] 251 ITR 217, wherein while dealing with the provisions of section 40A(5) of the Act, which are in pari materia with the provisions of section 40(c) of the Act, it has been held that it is the actual expenditure and not the perquisite value which has to be taken into consideration. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal is co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITR 344. Accordingly, this question is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee was to receive a royalty of Rs. 3,60,396 and Rs. 8,60,302 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, respectively, from a Tanzanian party. The said party withheld the amounts of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 70,000 for the two years, respectively, on account of tax payable in that country. The assessee claimed that the entire amount of Rs. 3,60,396 and Rs. 8,60,302 was deductible under the provisions of section 80-O of the Act, whereas, the Assessing Officer held that deduction was to be confined only to the amounts which had actually been brought into India in convertible foreign exchange. He, theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il, 2001; (ii) thirty per cent, for an assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2002; (iii) twenty per cent, for an assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2003; (iv) ten per cent, for an assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2004, of the income so received in, or brought into, India, in computing the total income of the assessee and no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2005, and any subsequent assessment year: Provided that such income is received in India within a period of six months from the end of the previous year, or within such further period as the competent authority may allow in this behalf: Provided further that no d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue. Question No. 4 relates to the disallowance of claim of weighted deduction claimed under section 35B of the Act, on freight and transportation and packing expenses and in respect of part of salaries. The finding of the Tribunal is in conformity with the decision of this court in CIT v. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603, wherein the law laid down by the apex court in CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 171 and CIT v. Hero Cycles Pvt. ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC), has been followed. Counsel for the assessee has not been able to controvert this position. Accordingly, question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 5 relates to disallowance of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the purpose of business, the same had to be restricted in terms of the provisions of section 80VV of the Act to Rs. 5,000 only. This finding has been affirmed by the Tribunal. Section 80VV of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time, reads as under: "80VV. In computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed by way of deduction any expenditure incurred by him in the previous year in respect of any proceedings before any income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal or any court relating to the determination of any liability under this Act, by way of tax, penalty or interest: Provided that no deduction under this section shall, in any case, exceed in the aggregate five thousand rupees." A plain reading of t....