help me

u can fwd me supreme court judgement yar.......

email:- ankurjain02 @ rediffmail.com

and further in case of employee also there may be any judgment m not aware..

actually these facts are nowhr written clearly yar so alwez conflicting isues

in nov .2010

the same question was ask 

for emplyee and employer

where the employer paid  a bulding for non to carry any activity

its charagable under the head b @ p

nov 2010 old course?????????

new course q.s.2.b. 

its for tds but on the same ground

the postion of all  on date is

emoplyoee  get charge under business and profession  though i m not sure as there is specific case for that ....bombay high court

emoyer will treat it as capital expenses

if for business :_

sec 28 business income for who receive it

and for payee its a capital expenditure to be treat as capital expenses and under intangiable assesst

question one  wait

cit v/s  bank of rajeshthan  ltd 2009178 tax . 308 <raj>

broken period intrest no need to do the postmartum

n o deduction of intrest from income

assesst taken  as  11 lks

intrest charge to tax  rs. 1 lk

ok yar we will discuss it tommorow..

thanks for updating and sharing a interesting topic

really  after reading all this i m getting shock yaar

there is one case

B.K.KOTRU  V/S  COMMISIIONER OR INCOME TAX  ( BOMBAY HIGH COURT )

COMPENTATION  NOT TO TAKE JOB ANY OTHER FIRM  RS. 96000

NOT CHARGABLE TO TAX , AS IT IS NOT INCOME

NO SALARY  BCAUSE  NO EMPLYOR EMPLOYEE RELATION IT THERE

IT  IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT  AND CAPITAL RECEIPT CANT CHARGABLE TO TAX

BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST

In CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 304 (Raj.), the assessee-bank purchased certain securities-cum-interest and, thus, the composite purchase consideration also comprised of issue price and accrued interest (broken period interest) uptill the date of purchase. The question in this case was whether the bank was entitled to have deduction of this element of interest from its income. The Tribunal in the first leg quashed the order under section 263 on the premise that if the securities are held as stock-intrade, the entire consideration including the interest element is allowable as revenue deduction, by way of cost of purchases. It drew reference to the Bombay High Court judgment in American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 601/125 Taxman 488. The Rajasthan High Court, however, chose to distinguish the Bombay High Court decision and instead followed the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541/57 Taxman 152. It, thus, held that it is not permissible to post-mortem the purchase component of an asset since the scheme of the Income-tax Act does not permit deduction of interest element paid as business expenditure. CHINNA NACHIMUTHU CONSTRUCTIONS (KAR) secuk guarantee to obtain Contract

ome

Where parties were debited with stipulated interest, but such interest was credited only to a suspense account and not carried to the profit and loss account, is it open to the Assessing Officer to bring to tax such income ? This was the issue that was raised in American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 601 (Bom). In coming to the conclusion, the High Court followed the decision in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC).  Another issue decided in this case related to the treatment of interest from Government securities. The method of accounting followed was to split up the consideration paid and also received as between accrued interest and principal amount, so that the interest receivable for the broken period was set off against interest payable for such period. It was held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taxing the interest receivable, while disallowing interest payable. In coming to the conclusion, the High Court had to meet the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 as well as the decision in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 688 (SC). But it was found that

they were distinguishable in the context of assessment of such income in these cases under the head “Other sources”. Interest on securities for a bank, in view of the requirement of maintenance of Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) in Government securities, would be assessable as business income as was pointed out in CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC). If it is so assessable as income from business, the method of accounting regularly followed cannot be faulted. It was also further pointed out that the assessee’s method of accounting did not result in loss to the Revenue, so that there was no need for interference with the method adopted. This decision on this point should avoid the subsisting controversy based upon the application of Vijaya Bank’s case in the case of most banks. 

THIS IS REGARDING THE CASE :- IS EMPLOYEE  GETTING COMPENSTAION NOT TO JOIN ANY OTHER FIRM :-

TAKE 282 ITR 0001-  B. K. KOTRU VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (BOMBAY HIGH COURT)  The assessee was in service with S as an industrial officer. He expressed his desire to leave the service and sought waiver of six months’ notice period by accepting his resignation with effect from May 25. Resignation became effective from that date. The assessee was offered employment by competitors of S like W. In order to prevent the assessee from accepting such offer, S offered an additional amount of Rs. 96,000 to the assessee on his agreeing not to accept similar job in any other competing organisation for a minimum period of two years  The receipt of Rs. 96,000 could not be linked with salary, perquisites or profit in lieu of salary. The receipt of this amount was after cessation of the employer and employee relationship. This receipt could only be a capital receipt.

COMPENSATION TO NOT TAKE JOB (RS.96000)

1. broken period intrest :-  is it true that , cum intrest assest is capitalized and intrest is charable to tax

2.  emplyoee is taxable or not  if he received  amount as compentation  for not to join any other firm

3.  if  assess is paying the amount to employee for not 
joining in any firm is he can claim it as a deduction  in profit and loss account or
he is suppose to capitalized it as intangiable assest and then claim deprication

4.  if assess is paying the amount to business as non competing fess will he get 
the deduction or need to capotaized 

5. the same knock out aggrement if assess pays the amout to not to bid to others 
will he get the deduction as amount paid in p and l account 
as the person receiving it is chagable to tax as specifically mention in sec 28 

pliz help me.

________________

rojaline sahoohttps://www.puffinsgroup.com