Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2006 (11) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act by which the relief granted in the original assessment under section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was partly withdrawn excluding share income received from the partnership firms. The second issue is on the respondent's eligibility for deduction under section 32AB on income received as shares from the partnership firms. We have heard counsel appearing for both sides. The respondent-assessee besides being engaged in production of steel in their factory was a partner in three firms during the assessment year 1990-91. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act, the respondent-assessee was granted relief under section 32AB at 20 per cent. of the total income from business including the share income received from the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter made in rectification proceeding was in fact correcting an apparent mistake. The assessee was admittedly engaged in an eligible business which entitles it under section 32AB to a deduction on the investment in purchase of plant, machinery etc., for the industry or on making a deposit in a special account within the time prescribed therein subject to a ceiling of 20 per cent. of the total business income earned by the assessee. There is no dispute with regard to the eligibility for deduction in all other respects except in regard to the amount involved. As already stated above, Rs. 14,81,010 does not represent business income of the assessee, but the said amount is the total of share income received by the assessee as partner in three se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ount so utilised; or (ii) a sum equal to twenty per cent. of the profits of eligible business or profession as computed in the accounts of the assessee audited in accordance with sub-section (5), whichever is less: Provided that where such assessee is a firm, or any association of persons or any body of individuals, the deduction under this section shall not be allowed in the computation of the income of any partner, or, as the case may be, any member of such firm, association of persons or body of individuals... (2) For the purposes of this section,- (i) 'eligible business or profession' shall mean business or profession, other than- (a) the business of construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing speci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion under section 32AB in respect of share income received from the three partnership firms. This finding of ours answers the question on the merits against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Counsel for the assessee contended that only apparent errors or mistakes could be rectified under section 154 as held by the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50. Counsel also pointed out that the question is a debatable one and the same is evident from the fact that the two appellate authorities interpreted the section in favour of the assessee which itself is enough evidence to show that it is a debatable issue. Standing counsel on the other hand contended that the issue would have been debatable but for the....