19. Tax Information Exchange Agreement with Bermuda.
India has signed first Tax Information Exchange Agreement with Bermuda.
Tax Information Exchange Agreement with Bermuda.
Category: Direct Taxes
S. 43B — The assessee issued Deep Discount Bonds in 2000 — During the relevant assessment year, it claimed deduction of interest accrued on above bonds — AO was of the view that since no interest was paid in the period and eventually, the interest will be
Gujarat Toll Road Inv. Co. Ltd. v. ACIT
A.Y. : 2003/04 Dated : 15-05-2009
S. 43B — The assessee issued Deep Discount Bonds in 2000 —
During the relevant assessment year, it claimed deduction of interest accrued on
above bonds — AO was of the view that since no interest was paid in the period
and eventually, the interest will be paid after maturity of the bonds, no
deduction is permissible — Held, the interest would be still allowable in view
of mercantile system of accounting followed by the assesse.
Facts :
The assessee, an infrastructure company, issued Deep Discount
Bonds worth Rs.30 crore in 2000 to Mutual Funds, Public Financial Institutions
and Scheduled Banks. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.6,08,03,230 in the A.Y.
2003-04 on account of interest paid. However, the AO was of the view that since
the total interest will be paid at the maturity of the Deep Discount Bonds,
deduction was to be allowed only on actual payment. On appeal, the Commissioner
(Appeals) affirmed the view of the AO on a different ground, i.e., since
interest was to be paid on maturity, there was no question of accrual of
interest for the period.
Held :
As per the mercantile system of accounting employed by the
assessee, though the payment was to be made only at the maturity, it was not
wrong to provide for interest in a pro rata manner as the liability has accrued.
This view was seconded by the Circular No. 2 of 2002, dated 16-2-2002 of the
CBDT.
Thus, the interest which had accrued during the period,
though not paid was still allowable to the assessee. Moreover, it was affirmed
that S. 43B(e) was not applicable to payment of interest to Mutual Funds. Also,
in case of Public Financial Institutions, S. 43B(d) is attracted only on payment
of interest to its loans/borrower. In the given case, interest was paid on Deep
Discount Bonds which are like deposits. So, provisions regarding payment of
interest on loans/by a borrower as per S. 43B(d) and S. 43B(e) were not
applicable. Therefore, the disallowance made for interest in respect of Deep
Discount Bonds was to be deleted.
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 10A — Free trade zone — An assessee need not set off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses of non-STPI unit against profit of STPI unit as there is no deduction u/s.10A for non-STPI unit.
55 (2010) 125 ITD 101 (Bangalore)
Rely Software (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (Bangalore)
A.Y. : 2004-05. Dated : 16-5-2008
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 10A — Free trade zone — An assessee
need not set off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses of non-STPI
unit against profit of STPI unit as there is no deduction u/s.10A for non-STPI
unit.
Facts I :
In A.Y. 2004-05, the Assessing Officer on scrutiny of the
assessee’s case was of the view that unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward
losses of non-STPI unit should be adjusted against the profits of STPI unit
before claiming deduction u/s.10A. The aggrieved assessee appealed to the CIT(A),
who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
Facts II :
The AO obtained the details of export of incurred in foreign
exchange. The details as given by the assessee included an item ‘allowance paid
to engineers on overseas contract’. The Assessing Officer held that the said
expenditure is for technical services and accordingly excluded the same from
export turnover.
Held I :
The Tribunal relied on the decisions of ACIT v. Yokogawa
India Ltd., (2007) (13 SOT 470) (Bang.) and Huawei Technologies (Ind.) P. Ltd. [ITA
No. 9(B) of 2007, Order dated 8-11-2007] and held that the business loss or
unabsorbed depreciation of non-STPI should not be set off with the STPI unit.
The following observations were also made :
1. The words total income used in S. 10A means total
income as computed under the provisions of the Act. The substituted S. 10A
does not mean that profits as mentioned u/s.10A should not be included in
the total income.2. The Legislature has used the words ‘profits and gains
as derived by an undertaking’. The assessee may have more than one
undertaking and in that case one has to consider the profits and gains of
that undertaking which qualifies for deduction u/s.10A.3. S. 10A nowhere mentions that the deduction has to be
restricted to the total income of the assessee as computed as per the
provisions of the Act. The only interpretation which is possible in respect
of S. 10A is that deduction of the unit qualifying for exemption is to be
given to the extent of income computed in respect of that unit as per the
provisions of the Act.
Held II :
1. Payments made to the engineers employed on site are
for the development of software. By such development, the assesse has not
rendered any technical services.2. The CBDT Circular No. 694, dated 23-11-1994, stated
that computer programs are not physical goods, but are developed as a result
of intellectual analysis of the system. It is often prepared on site with
the software personnel going to the client’s premises.
Hence the expenditure incurred for payments on site
development cannot be excluded from the export turnover by holding it as
technical services.
S. 43(6), S. 45(1A) and S. 50 — Insurance claim received on damaged tanks and terminals — S. 43(6) does not include the word ‘damage’ — Hence the same should not be reduced from the WDV.
J. R. Enterprises v. ACIT
A.Y. : 2002-03. Dated : 30-6-2008
S. 43(6), S. 45(1A) and S. 50 — Insurance claim received on
damaged tanks and terminals — S. 43(6) does not include the word ‘damage’ —
Hence the same should not be reduced from the WDV.
Facts :
The assessee’s tanks and terminals were damaged due to an
earthquake during the relevant financial year. The assessee incurred an
expenditure of Rs.3,83,04,364 for repair, reconstruction and refurbishment of
the said tanks and terminals. As against this, the assessee received a total sum
of Rs.1,57,28,124 from the insurance company in two instalments. During the
relevant financial year, the assessee deducted the amount of first instalment
(i.e., Rs.1,25,00,000) received from the insurance company from total
expenditure incurred (i.e., Rs.3,83,04,364). The balance amount was shown as WIP
in the balance sheet. In the next year, the assessee deducted the second
instalment received from the said WIP and included certain other expenses
incurred. The final amount was then capitalised and depreciation u/s.32 was
claimed on the said amount.
The AO pointed out that the provisions of S. 45(1A) r.w. S.
50 should be applied to the assessee’s case. Thus the insurance receipt of
Rs.1,57,28,124 should be deducted from the WDV of the block of plant and
machinery.
Held :
1. S. 50 of the Act deals with transfer of assets or
cessation of existence of the block of assets. In the instant case, there is
neither a transfer, nor has the block ceased to exist. It is a case of
damaged tank and terminals and damage does not involve transfer or cessation
of existence.2. Further, the words used in S. 45(1A) are ‘profit or
gains’, which imply the excess of the insurance receipts over the
expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of damaged tanks and
terminals. The total insurance receipts in the present case is much less
than the total expenditure incurred by the assessee. Therefore the
provisions of S. 45(1A) are inapplicable in the present case.3. S. 43(6)(c)(i)(B) excludes the word ‘damage’.
Therefore the moneys payable in respect of damaged tanks and terminals is
outside the purview of the said Section.4. There is no provision in the Act to authorise the
Assessing Officer to decrease the WDV involving damaged depreciable assets
as in the case of the assessee. The AO has thus erroneously equated the
insurance receipts in the assessee’s case with ‘moneys payable in respect of
any asset falling in that block which is sold or discarded or demolished or
destroyed’.5. The AO has erroneously assumed that every insurance
receipt is taxable, ignoring the provisions of the S. 45(1A) which use the
words ‘any profits or gains’ on such insurance receipts.
S. 10(16) — Scholarship/stipend paid to assessee — Whether can be termed as salary — Held, No. The same is exempt u/s.10(16).
Dr. Rahul Tugnait v. ITO
A.Y. : 2005-06. Dated : 30-6-2008
S. 10(16) — Scholarship/stipend paid to assessee — Whether
can be termed as salary — Held, No. The same is exempt u/s.10(16).
Facts :
The assessee completed his MBBS degree and joined a medical
college as a junior resident for post graduation. He received a sum of
Rs.2,65,955 from the college as a scholarship/stipend for higher education. The
assessee claimed the said amount as exempt u/s.10(16) of the Act. The AO
disallowed the claim on the ground that the said amount forms salary income in
the hands of the assessee.
Held :
1. The terms and conditions mentioned in the bond signed
between the assessee and the college clearly use the words ‘scholarship’ and
‘scholarship holder’.2. The assessee had made an application to the principal
of the medical college. The letter of the Principal clearly states that the
amount is a ‘stipend’ to the post-graduate student.3. S. 10(16) of the Act speaks about the scholarship
granted to meet the cost of education, therefore, it can be said that even
if it is an income in the hands of recipient, it cannot be taxed, because it
is a scholarship to meet the cost of education.
Credit for TDS to be allowed even when the income is capitalised and not directly offered to tax.
52 (2010) 124 ITD 394 (Chennai)
Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd. v. ITO
A.Y. : 2003-04. Dated : 14-8-2008
Credit for TDS to be allowed even when the income is
capitalised and not directly offered to tax.
Facts :
The assessee was a domestic company engaged in the business
of co-generation of power. It had earned interest income of Rs. 51,21,287 on
which tax was deducted at source. The said interest income arose out of a
statutory deposit made by the assessee. The said interest income was deducted
from expenditure incurred for the installation of machinery. The Assessing
Officer, however, did not give credit of tax deducted on this interest income on
the ground that the same was not offered to tax but was capitalised.
Held :
Relying on the decisions of Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills
Ltd. (243 ITR 2) (SC) and Toyo Engg. India Ltd. v. JCIT, (5 SOT 616), the ITAT
held that :
(1) When deposit is linked with the installation of
machinery, income earned on such deposit is incidental to the installation.
Accordingly, the interest is a capital receipt and would go to reduce the
cost of asset. The assessee had rightly deducted the interest income from
the cost of asset and while doing so it has indirectly offered the income to
tax.(2) When a particular income is received after deduction
of tax, the TDS has been duly deposited with the bank and the assessee has
received the requisite certificate to this effect, then on production of the
said certificate the assessee becomes entitled to the credit of
TDS even if the income is not directly offered for tax.(3) The assessee should be rightly allowed the credit of
tax deducted. The Government cannot benefit by taking advantage of legal
technicalities.
S. 271(1)(c) — Deduction u/s.80HHC — Assessee included miscellaneous income without reducing 90% — Penalty cannot be levied simply because assessee had not reduced 90% of other incomes
Model Footwear (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
A.Y. : 1998-99. Dated : 22-5-2009
S. 271(1)(c) — Deduction u/s.80HHC — Assessee included
miscellaneous income without reducing 90% — Penalty cannot be levied simply
because assessee had not reduced 90% of other incomes
S. 271(1)(c) — Last year for claiming deduction u/s.80I was
A.Y. 1996-97 — Inspite of this, assessee claimed deduction u/s.80I — No
explanation offered by assessee in this regard — Explanation I to S. 271(1)(c)
applicable — Penalty to be levied.
Facts :
The assessee claimed deduction u/s.80HHC of Rs. 1,52,63,904.
While doing so, the assessee included interest income, miscellaneous income and
excess provision written back in the profit without reducing 90% thereof. The
AO, by applying the Explanation (baa) to S. 80HHC, excluded 90% of aforesaid
amounts and worked out deduction u/s.80HHC. He also initiated penalty
proceedings u/s.271(1)(c).
The Assessing Officer further noticed that the assessee had
also claimed deduction u/s.80I. The AO noted that the assessee was entitled to
deduction only up to A.Y. 1996-97. The AO thereafter asked the assessee to give
reasons as to why the claim of deduction u/s.80I should not be disallowed. No
reply in this regard was furnished by the assessee. The AO, therefore, held that
the claim of deduction u/s.80I was incorrect. He also initiated penalty
proceedings u/s.271(1)(c).
The CIT(A) confirmed the above additions. Thereafter, the AO
proceeded with penalty proceedings.
The CIT(A) confirmed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable
in the assessee’s case.
Held :
(1) The question of excluding interest income and
miscellaneous income is dependent upon the nature of incomes — Whether they
are directly connected to operations of the assessee’s business. Simply
because the assessee had claimed deduction without reducing 90% of aforesaid
incomes, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed income or has
made incorrect claim. The assessee’s claim was a bona fide one and assessee
has disclosed all material facts. Hence, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is to be
levied.(2) As far as deduction u/s.80I is concerned, penalty
u/s.271(1)(c) has been correctly levied. No reason or explanation was given
by the assessee as to why it made a claim for deduction u/s.80I when it was
known to the assessee that the deduction is available only up to the A.Y.
1996-97.
The Assessing Officer started making enquiry and on enquiry,
the assessee informed the AO that the first year of deduction was A.Y. 1989-90.
Even, thereafter the assessee did not withdraw the claim made u/s.80I.
Hence the Explanation I to S. 271(1)(c) is squarely
applicable to assessee’s case inasmuch as the assessee failed to offer any
explanation.
S. 40A(9) — Where the contribution made to any fund is a bona fide one, the same should not be hit by the disallowance of S. 40A(9).
50 (2010) 124 ITD 332 (Cochin)
ACIT v. State Bank of Travancore
A.Y. : 2002-03. Dated : 8-8-2007
S. 40A(9) — Where the contribution made to any fund is a bona
fide one, the same should not be hit by the disallowance of S. 40A(9).
Facts :
The assessee had contributed Rs.50 lakhs to Retired Employees
Medical Benefit Scheme. This was pursuant to the Associate Bank Officers’
Association’s (‘union’) demands from the management of the State Bank of India
and its subsidiaries. After negotiations between the management and the union,
it was agreed to formulate a medical scheme for retired officers. As per terms
of agreement between the management and the union, the assessee paid Rs.50 lakhs
as its contribution towards formulation of the scheme.
On perusal of the tax audit report, the AO disallowed the
said contribution on the ground that the said contribution is subject to the
provisions of S. 40A(9). The CIT(A) held in favour of the assessee.
Held :
The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee on the following
grounds :
(1) The basic intention for inserting Ss.(9) to S. 40A was
to discourage the practice of creating camouflage trust funds, etc. ostensibly
for the welfare of employees and transferring huge funds to such trust as
contribution.(2) In the given case, there was an agreement signed by the
management and the union and contribution made by the assessee was in
pursuance to this agreement. Hence, it was a contractual obligation of the
assessee and the contribution was a bona fide one. Further, in the case of
assessee the fund is not in the control of the assessee.
The assessee would not be hit by the provisions of S. 40A(9).
51 (2010) 124 ITD 353 (Delhi)
Model Footwear (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
A.Y. : 1998-99. Dated : 22-5-2009
S. 271(1)(c) — Deduction u/s.80HHC — Assessee included
miscellaneous income without reducing 90% — Penalty cannot be levied simply
because assessee had not reduced 90% of other incomes
S. 271(1)(c) — Last year for claiming deduction u/s.80I was
A.Y. 1996-97 — Inspite of this, assessee claimed deduction u/s.80I — No
explanation offered by assessee in this regard — Explanation I to S. 271(1)(c)
applicable — Penalty to be levied.
Facts :
The assessee claimed deduction u/s.80HHC of Rs. 1,52,63,904.
While doing so, the assessee included interest income, miscellaneous income and
excess provision written back in the profit without reducing 90% thereof. The
AO, by applying the Explanation (baa) to S. 80HHC, excluded 90% of aforesaid
amounts and worked out deduction u/s.80HHC. He also initiated penalty
proceedings u/s.271(1)(c).
The Assessing Officer further noticed that the assessee had
also claimed deduction u/s.80I. The AO noted that the assessee was entitled to
deduction only up to A.Y. 1996-97. The AO thereafter asked the assessee to give
reasons as to why the claim of deduction u/s.80I should not be disallowed. No
reply in this regard was furnished by the assessee. The AO, therefore, held that
the claim of deduction u/s.80I was incorrect. He also initiated penalty
proceedings u/s.271(1)(c).
The CIT(A) confirmed the above additions. Thereafter, the AO
proceeded with penalty proceedings.
The CIT(A) confirmed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable
in the assessee’s case.
Held :
(1) The question of excluding interest income and
miscellaneous income is dependent upon the nature of incomes — Whether they
are directly connected to operations of the assessee’s business. Simply
because the assessee had claimed deduction without reducing 90% of aforesaid
incomes, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed income or has made
incorrect claim. The assessee’s claim was a bona fide one and assessee has
disclosed all material facts. Hence, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is to be levied.(2) As far as deduction u/s.80I is concerned, penalty
u/s.271(1)(c) has been correctly levied. No reason or explanation was given by
the assessee as to why it made a claim for deduction u/s.80I when it was known
to the assessee that the deduction is available only up to the A.Y. 1996-97.
The Assessing Officer started making enquiry and on enquiry,
the assessee informed the AO that the first year of deduction was A.Y. 1989-90.
Even, thereafter the assessee did not withdraw the claim made u/s.80I.
Hence the Explanation I to S. 271(1)(c) is squarely applicable to assessee’s
case inasmuch as the assessee failed to offer any explanation.
S. 10B — For claiming deduction the assessee need not own the plant and machinery by itself.
49 (2010) 124 ITD 249 (Delhi)
ITO v. Techdrive (India) (P.) Ltd.
A.Y. : 2002-03. Dated : 27-6-2008
S. 10B — For claiming deduction the assessee need not own the
plant and machinery by itself.
Facts :
The assessee is a private limited company. In its return of
income it claimed a deduction u/s.10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in
respect of export of computer software. During the scrutiny assessment, the AO
found that the assessee did not have any plant and machinery to develop any
computer software on its own. The computer software developing was done in the
premises of Seacom, the subsidiary of the assessee for which the assessee paid
‘software development charges’. According to the AO, one of the basic conditions
for claiming deduction u/s.10B is that the assessee company should have its own
infrastructure. He denied deduction u/s.10B of the Act.
The CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to exemption
u/s.10B.
Held :
On appeal, the ITAT allowed deduction u/s.10B on the
following grounds :
(1) Relying on various judgments, the ITAT held that it is
not required that the assessee company should itself own plant and machinery.
Even if the assessee gets the articles manufactured from some other person but
under the control and supervision of the assessee, it must be taken as if the
assessee is the manufacturer.(2) Further the development of computer software is a very
specialised field which requires specialised education, skills, etc. It is not
a mechanical job and more than machines, it is human skills that count.(3) Further, Circular 694, dated 23-11-1994 also supports
the assessee’s case. The Circular accepts that computer programmes are not
physical goods but are developed through a process of intellectual analysis.
It also recognizes that in some cases it is possible for the assessee to
produce software at the client’s premises. In such case, the software
personnel sent by the assessee would obviously use the client’s equipment
only.
S. 32 r.w. S. 147, S. 133A — Depreciation cannot be denied on asset forming part of block of assets is not used
Part A — Reported Decisions
50 (2008) 22 SOT 249 (Mum.)
Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO
ITA Nos. 153 and 154 (Mum.) of 2003
A.Ys. 1996-97 & 1997-98. Dated : 25-1-2008
S. 32 r.w. S. 147 and S. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 —
Once an asset was part of block of assets and depreciation was granted on that
block, it cannot be denied in subsequent year on the ground that one of the
assets was not used by the assessee in that year.
The Assessing Officer completed the assessments of the
assessee for the relevant years u/s.143(3). Subsequently, a survey u/s.133A was
carried out at the business premises of the assessee. On the basis of the
statement recorded of the estate manager (R), the Assessing Officer reopened the
assessment for A.Ys. 1996-97 and 1997-98 and disallowed the assessee’s claim for
depreciation and maintenance expenses of one building as R had stated that the
building was under structural renovation during the period and was vacated by
the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action.
The Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted as under :
(a) Apart from R’s Statement, the Department had not
brought anything on record for negating the claim of the assessee with regard
to depreciation.
(b) Contrary to the facts possessed by the Assessing
Officer, the assessee had demonstrated that the building, though was under
renovation, yet was not totally abandoned; it had been using this building for
business purposes and it had incurred electricity expenses, telephone expenses
and made sales and purchases from this building. The assessee had also pointed
out that all correspondence was being made in that building only. The demand
notice was also served on these premises. It was also pointed out that
registered office address was also of this building.
(c) If one weighed the material produced by the assessee
vis-à-vis the solitary statement of R elicited by the authority during the
course of survey, then scale would tilt in favour of the assessee, because the
statement was recorded U/ss.(3)(iii) of S. 133A without administering the oath
to R. This was information which required corroboration for deciding an issue
against the assessee. The Assessing Officer had not brought any corroborative
piece of evidence in support of this information.
(d) It was also submitted by the assessee that the building
was part of its block of assets. The Tribunal in Packwell Printers v. ACIT,
(1996) 58 ITD 340 (Jab.) has considered a similar issue. This order of the
Tribunal was subsequently followed in Natco Exports v. Dy. CIT, (2003)
86 ITD 445 (Hyd.), etc. According to these decisions, once the asset is part
of block of assets and depreciation is granted on that block, it cannot be
denied in the subsequent year on the ground that one of the assets was not
used by the assessee in some of the years. The user of the assets has to apply
upon the block as a whole instead of an individual asset. The Revenue could
not cite any other decision contrary to the said decisions of the Tribunal.
Therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation and other expenses in
respect of the building.
(a) S. 23 — Notional interest on interest- free deposit cannot be considered for determining annual letting value. (b) Standard rent under Rent Control Act, can be taken as ALV; in absence of standard rent, municipal rateable value to be taken — If muni
Part A — Reported Decisions
49 (2008) 22 SOT 245 (Mum.)
Delite Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v.
ITO
ITA Nos. 433, 2983-4887 and 5708 (Mum.) of 2005
A.Ys. 2001-02 & 2002-03. Dated : 26-2-2008
S. 23 of the Income-tax Act,.1961-
(a) Notional interest on interest-free deposit cannot
be considered for determining the Annual Letting Value (ALV)
(b) When Rent Control Act applies, only standard rent
can be taken as ALV; in the absence of standard rent, municipal rateable value
is to be taken and where municipal rateable value is less than actual rent,
then actual rent shall be the fair market value.
During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had let out
a property in New Delhi for an annual rent of Rs.0.60 lacs and took security
deposit of Rs.370.60 lacs. The assessee computed the annual letting value of the
said property u/s.23(1)(b) by taking the rent received at Rs.60,000 and offered
the same to tax in its return of income. It submitted before the Assessing
Officer that the Municipal Rateable Value (MRV) of the said property as per
Delhi Municipal Authority was Rs.22,230 only and, therefore, the higher of the
two had to be taken into consideration while computing the annual letting value
u/s.23(1)(b). The Assessing Officer held that there was an interest-free
security deposit of Rs.370.60 lacs and the interest had to be considered while
arriving at the fair market value of the property. He further held that S.
23(1)(b) was not applicable to the facts of the case and only S. 23(1)(a) had to
be considered. Further, the Assessing Officer relied upon some property
newspaper and computed the annual rent at Rs.14.40 lacs. The CIT(A) upheld the
order.
The Tribunal held in the assessee’s favour. The Tribunal
noted as under :
1. Interest on security deposit :
The Assessing Officer cannot consider notional interest on
deposit while arriving at the fair market value u/s.23(1)(b) of the Act. The
judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in case of J. K. Investors (Bombay)
Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 723/112 Taxman 107 has been approved by the Supreme Court.
2. Determination of ALV
(a) A reading of the order of the Tribunal in ITO v.
Makrupa Chemicals (P.) Ltd., (2007) 108 ITD 95 (Mum.) shows that the
standard rent is the upper limit. The property in question was situated in
Delhi and was indisputably covered under the Rent Control Act. Hence, the
standard rent had to be arrived at. Further, fair market value should be based
on the facts and circumstances of the case.
(b) The Assessing Officer had not made any attempt
whatsoever to decide the standard rent and, under these circumstances, the
municipal rateable value assumed significance. As the actual rent received was
more than municipal rateable value, the actual rent received should be taken
as municipal rateable value. In any event, as the Rent Control Act applied to
the property in question, only standard rent could be taken as the annual
letting value. In the absence of standard rent, municipal rateable value was
to be taken. As municipal rateable value was less than the actual rent, the
actual rent would be the fair market value of property. Therefore, the
assessee had rightly computed annual letting value of the said property
u/s.23(1)(b) by taking into consideration actual rent received.
S. 28(iv) — Gifts received by social reformer and philosopher from followers could not be taxed u/s.28(iv).
Part A — Reported Decisions
48 (2008) 22 SOT 197 (Mum.)
Nirmala P. Athavale v. ITO
ITA No. 1084 (Mum.) of 2005
A.Y. 2001-02. Dated : 29-2-2008
S. 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Gifts received by a
social reformer and philosopher from followers in recognition of personal
qualities and noble thoughts could not be taxed u/s.28(iv).
The assessee, husband of the appellant, a well known social
reformer and philosopher and having lakhs of followers spread all over the
world, had established a movement called ‘Swadhyaya’ for the upliftment of the
masses. The assessee had devoted his whole life to the cause of this movement
and had never charged any fee or remuneration from his followers or the persons
who attended his lectures at any point of time. During the relevant previous
year, the assessee had received voluntary gifts of certain sum on his 80th
birthday from his admirers and well-wishers in recognition of his personal
qualities and noble thoughts and claimed the same to be exempt from taxation.
The Assessing Officer held that conducting spiritual discourses amounted to a
vocation and, hence, the provisions of S. 28(iv) were squarely applicable to the
instant case. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the amount of gifts
received by the assessee as his income from profession and brought the same to
tax. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted as under :
(a) The work done by the assessee was a mass movement or
campaign and not a vocation. Even if it was treated as vocation, then having
regard to the fact that the assessee had never charged any fee or remuneration
for his imparting of knowledge and practising of values based on ‘Shrimad
Bhagawat Gita’ and also the fact that the assessee did not have any vested
right to receive any kind of payment for these activities from his
disciples/followers, the gift made by the followers, without being under any
contractual or legal or customary obligations to do so, could not be treated
as a consideration arising out of carrying on of vocation.
(b) In Helios Food Improvers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT,
(2007) 14 SOT 546 (Mum.) the Tribunal has held that the provisions of S.
28(iv) can be applied in a number of situations, but the bottomline or crucial
fact would always be circumvention of income by taking or receiving income in
other forms. Since, in the instant case, there was no intention of
circumvention of income on the part of the assessee or receiving income in
other forms, provisions of S. 28(iv) could not be applied.
(c) Further, the term ‘perquisite’ as per dictionary
meaning means ‘privilege or benefit given in addition to one’s salary or
regular wages’, which means that it is an additional benefit and not a
complete substitution of one’s income. The assessee had never charged any
consideration from his followers or persons who attended his lectures. Hence,
it could not be termed as ‘benefit’ or ‘perquisite’ within the meaning of S.
28(iv).
S. 271(1)(c) — Deduction u/s.80HHC — Assessee included miscellaneous income without reducing 90% — Penalty cannot be levied simply because assessee had not reduced 90% of other incomes.
Part
A: Reported Decisions
48 (2010) 124 ITD 353 (Delhi)
Model Footwear (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
A.Y. 1998-99. Dated : 22-5-2009
S. 271(1)(c) — Deduction u/s.80HHC — Assessee included
miscellaneous income without reducing 90% — Penalty cannot be levied simply
because assessee had not reduced 90% of other incomes.
The assessee claimed deduction u/s.80HHC of Rs. 1,52,63,904.
While doing so, the assessee included interest income, miscellaneous income and
excess provision written back in the profit without reducing 90% thereof. The
AO, by applying the Explanation (baa) to S. 80HHC, excluded 90% of aforesaid
amounts and worked out deduction u/s.80HHC. He also initiated penalty
proceedings u/s.271(1)(c).
The CIT(A) confirmed the above additions. Thereafter, the AO
proceeded with penalty proceedings.
The CIT(A) confirmed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable
in the assessee’s case.
Held :
The question of excluding interest income and miscellaneous
income is dependent upon the nature of incomes — whether they are directly
connected to operations of the assessee’s business. Simply because the assessee
had claimed deduction without reducing 90% of aforesaid incomes, it cannot be
said that the assessee has concealed income or has made incorrect claim. The
assessee’s claim was a bona fide one and the assessee has disclosed all material
facts. Hence, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is to be levied.
Note : The above issue was the main issue involved in the case.
The other issues being minor issues have not been reported.
S. 271(1)(c) — The constitution of Special Bench itself suggests that there was some force in the claim of the assessee — If there is a debatable issue and action of the assessee is bona fide being based on adoption of one of the possible views, the penal
Part
A: Reported Decisions
47 (2010) 39 DTR (Del.) (Trib.) 202
Pradeep Agencies Joint Venture v. ITO
A.Ys. : 2003-04 & 2004-05. Dated : 31-3-2010
S. 271(1)(c) — The constitution of Special Bench itself
suggests that there was some force in the claim of the assessee — If there is a
debatable issue and action of the assessee is bona fide being based on adoption
of one of the possible views, the penalty is not leviable.
Facts :
The assessee was an AOP and during the relevant assessment
years it filed return of income at nil and it was claimed that it had
distributed the profit amongst its members as per their respective shares which
are determined and defined in the joint venture agreement and all of them have
shown their share as income u/s.67A and, therefore, S. 167B(2) was not
applicable. The assessee supported its claim by relying on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar & Purna Ginning & Pressing
Factory, 60 ITR 95 and also by Board’s Circular No. 75/19/191/62-ITJ, dated 24th
August, 1966.
The contention of the assessee was not accepted by the AO and
income was taxed in the hands of the AOP at maximum marginal rate as per S.
167B(2). The matter went up to the Tribunal and Special Bench was constituted.
The Special Bench held that the assessment made on the AOP is valid as reliance
could not be placed on the Circular as the same had lost its validity in the
light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah,
218 ITR 239 and also there was amendment in the provisions of the Act by virtue
of which the AO had lost option to the assessee either AOP or its members under
the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as compared to the provisions of the
1922 Act.
The penalty was levied on the ground that the assessee has
not come clean on the issue of taxing the income received by AOP u/s.167B(2) and
tried to mislead the Department.
Held :
It has to be kept in mind that quantum proceedings are
different and distinct from the penalty proceedings. In penalty proceedings,
mere confirmation of addition in quantum proceedings cannot be said to be
conclusive factor to hold that penalty is leviable. According to the facts of
the present case, right from the beginning it has been the case of the assessee
that its claim of filing substantial income in the hands of the members of the
AOP was supported by the decision of the Supreme Court, which was even
interpreted by the CBDT in its Circular to be applicable to the provisions of
the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is also the case of the assessee that even if the
legal position had been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Ch. Atchaiah (supra), then also the Circular being a benevolent one could not
be refused to be applied by the Department unless the same is withdrawn. The
constitution of the Special Bench itself suggests that there was some force in
the claim of the assessee or at least the view taken by the assessee could not
be said to be totally devoid of merit. The reference of issue to the Special
Bench is indicative of the fact that there was a lot of debate on the issue
whether the benevolent Circular will prevail even after the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Atchaiah (supra). Thus, it is certainly a case
where two views of the matter were possible. Where there is a debatable issue
and action of the assessee is bona fide being based on adoption of one of the
possible views, the penalty is not leviable even if in the quantum proceedings
it was not finally accepted by the Tribunal.
S. 80-IA — The eligibility for the claim of deduction u/s.80-IA by applying the restraints of S. 80-IA(3) cannot be considered for every year of the claim of deduction u/s.80-IA, but can be considered only in the year of formation of the business.
Part
A: Reported Decisions
46 (2010) 39 DTR (Del.) (Trib.) 17
Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. v.
ITO
A.Y. : 2006-07. Dated : 26-2-2010
S. 80-IA — The eligibility for the claim of deduction
u/s.80-IA by applying the restraints of S. 80-IA(3) cannot be considered for
every year of the claim of deduction u/s.80-IA, but can be considered only in
the year of formation of the business.
Facts :
The company was in the business of providing fax mail
services. The company started two new services being Internet services and
Internet telephony services as per the licence issued from the Department of
Telecommunication (DOT). The assessee claimed that as per the provisions of
S. 80-IA(4), the assessee was entitled to the deduction right from the A.Y.
2001-02 as the first invoice was made on 17th October, 2000. The assessee did
not claim deduction u/s.80-IA(4) for the A.Ys. 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 and
the first year of claim u/s.80-IA(4) was for A.Y. 2004-05 and for the
A.Ys. 2004-05 and 2005-06 the assessee had been granted the deduction where the
assessment orders were passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.
The AO denied the deduction u/s.80-IA(4) for A.Y. 2006-07 on
the ground that this was a new business in which the assessee had used the plant
and machinery previously used in its business of fax mail services.
Held :
The bar as provided in S. 80-IA(3) is to be considered only
for the first year of claim of deduction
u/s.80-IA. Once the assessee has been shown to have used new plant and machinery
which was not previously used for any purpose and it is established that the
undertaking is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business
already in existence the assessee becomes entitled to the deduction u/s.80-IA.
In the subsequent years, the assessee may acquire fresh machinery and plant
whether new or previously used for any purpose. As the deduction is available on
the income of the undertaking and the bar provided u/s.80-IA(3) is in relation
to the formation of undertaking, once the formation is complete the development
of undertaking cannot be put under restraints of S. 80-IA(3) of the Act. The
eligibility for the claim of deduction u/s.80-IA by applying the restraints of
S. 80-IA(3) cannot be considered for every year of the claim of deduction
u/s.80-IA, but can be considered only in the year of formation of the
undertaking.
Even otherwise in the present case, the clause (ii) of S.
80-IA(4) having been inserted in S. 80-IA(3) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 and the
business of the assessee has been formed and commenced much before 1st April,
2005, the restrictions placed by S. 80-IA(3) to the provisions of S.
80-IA(4)(ii) would not bar that assessee for continuing with its claim of
deduction u/s.80-IA.
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 70(1), S. 80IA(5). An assessee running two separate undertakings can set off depreciation of the undertaking whose income is eligible for deduction u/s.80IA against business income of the other undertaking whose income is not eli
Part
A: Reported Decisions
45 2010 TIOL 338 ITAT (Bang.)
Swarnagiri Wire Insulations Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
A.Y. : 2006-07. Dated : 21-5-2010
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 70(1), S. 80IA(5). An assessee
running two separate undertakings can set off depreciation of the undertaking
whose income is eligible for deduction u/s.80IA against business income of the
other undertaking whose income is not eligible for deduction u/s.80IA.
Facts :
The assessee had two undertakings — one carrying on the
business of manufacturing of super-enameled copper winding wires and the other
carrying on the business of generation of power through windmills. The profits
of the undertaking generating power through windmills qualified for deduction
u/s.80IA, whereas the profits of the other business of manufacturing
super-enameled copper winding wires did not qualify for deduction u/s.80IA.
During the year under consideration, the assessee filed a revised computation of
income, claimed business income of Rs.60,00,829 from which it deducted
Rs.73,20,339 being loss/depreciation of undertaking generating power. The
Assessing Officer (AO) held that since the profits of the undertaking generating
power through windmill qualify for deduction u/s.80IA the loss/depreciation of
this undertaking cannot be set off against the income of the undertaking whose
profits do not qualify for deduction u/s.80IA. He, accordingly, denied the
set-off claimed by the assessee, but allowed it to carry forward the
loss/depreciation of undertaking generating power to the subsequent assessment
year.
Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who
rejected the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held :
(1) For the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction
as referred in Ss.(1) to S. 80IA in respect of an eligible business, the
computation will have to be done as if such eligible business was the only
source of income to the assessee in all the relevant years of claim commencing
from the initial assessment year.
(2) S. 80IA is a beneficial Section permitting certain
deductions in respect of certain income under Chapter VIA of the Act. A
provision granting incentive for promotion of economic growth and development in
taxing statutes should be liberally construed and restriction placed on it by
way of exception, should be construed in a reasonable and purposive manner so as
to advance the objects of the provision. It is a generally accepted principle
that the deeming provision of a particular Section cannot be breathed into
another Section. Therefore, the deeming provision contained in S. 80IA(5) cannot
override the S. 70(1) of the Act. The CIT(A)’s observation on this regard that
the specific provision of S. 80IA(5) have overriding effect is not acceptable.
(3) The assessee was entitled, as per provisions of the Act,
to claim depreciation on windmill at Rs.78,72,094 and had generated income from
windmill power generation business of Rs.5,51,755. Thus, the loss on account of
business eligible for deduction u/s.80IA was Rs.73,20,339. Since there was a
loss for the previous year, the question of deduction u/s.80IA did not arise.
The Tribunal held that as per S. 70(1), the assessee is eligible to set off this
loss of Rs.73,20,339 from another source under the same head of income. However,
during the subsequent assessment year, this loss has to be notionally carried
forward under the same source and set off before claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of
the Act.
The Tribunal directed the AO to set off the loss of the
assessee on windmill operations from the other source under the same head of
income. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 147, S. 148, S. 263. When CIT has after considering the explanations offered by the assessee dropped the proposed proceedings u/s.263, the AO has no locus standi to issue notice u/s.148 on the same set of facts.
Part
A: Reported Decisions
44 2010 TIOL 350 ITAT (Bang.)
Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v.
ACIT
A.Y. : 1988-89. Dated : 13-5-2010
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 147, S. 148, S. 263. When CIT has
after considering the explanations offered by the assessee dropped the proposed
proceedings u/s.263, the AO has no locus standi to issue notice u/s.148 on the
same set of facts.
Facts :
The total income of the assessee was originally assessed
u/s.143(3) of the Act. The CIT proposed a revision u/s.263, but later on dropped
the same accepting the explanations offered by the assessee-company. The reasons
which prompted the CIT to issue notice u/s.263 were regarding technical know-how
fees, cash assistance and duty draw-back, consideration of doubtful debts for
the deduction u/s.32AB and matter regarding deduction u/s.80I. The reasons
recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) for issuing notice u/s.148 and the
reasons reflected in the notice u/s.148 were nothing else but the very same
issues considered by the CIT for the purpose of S. 263 proceedings. The AO
having issued notice u/s.148 completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w. S. 147 of
the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A)
challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and contending that the
reassessment is bad in law and void ab initio. The CIT(A) upheld the order
passed by the AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal
where it contended that when the CIT has dropped the proposed proceedings
u/s.263 on arriving at the satisfaction of the explanations offered by the
assessee-company, the AO has no locus standi to issue notice u/s.148 on the same
set of issues and thereafter to frame an assessment u/s147.
Held :
The Tribunal noted that in A.Y. 1987-88 on similar facts and
circumstances, a similar issue had arisen in the case of the assessee and the
Tribunal had in that case found that the Madras High Court has in the case of
CIT v. Ramachandra Hatcheries, (305 ITR 117) (Mad.) considered the same legal
issue i.e., whether S. 147 action is permissible in a case where proceedings
u/s.263 had already been dropped. The Madras High Court has in the said case
held that the AO has no jurisdiction to reopen an assessment u/s.147 so as to
circumvent the order of the CIT passed u/s.263, which had become final unless
and until the order was set aside by any process known to law.
The Tribunal also noted that when a Co-ordinate Bench has
already passed an order on an issue it has to follow the said order of the
Co-ordinate Bench unless the facts are different or new questions of law have
been raised or new materials have been placed. If the facts and circumstances
are the same and the law considered the same and the materials placed before the
Tribunal are also the same, the Tribunal has to follow the earlier decision of
the Co-ordinate Bench as that is the mandate of rule of judicial precedence and
that of judicial discipline. If the Tribunal does not follow the earlier
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench without valid reasons, it would be an
onslaught of the Rule of Law. Not to follow the order of the Co-ordinate Bench
would be ridiculed as a pompous show of self-righteousness. That is why the
Supreme Court has in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (178 ITR 548)
(SC) has held that the Tribunal has to follow its own decision and should not
differ from its earlier view simply because a contrary view is possible.
The Tribunal following the order for A.Y. 1987-88 held the
reopening of assessment made by AO to be bad in law and set aside the order
passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w. S. 147 of the Act.
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 32(2) — Effect of substitution of S. 32(2) w.e.f. A.Y. 2002-03 is that unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier period is allowable under the new provision, but has to be dealt with in accordance with the old provision and is subje
Part
A: Reported Decisions
43 2010 TIOL 340 ITAT Mum.-SB
DCIT v. Times Guaranty Limited
A.Ys. : 2003-04 & 2004-05. Dated : 30-6-2010
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 32(2) — Effect of substitution of
S. 32(2) w.e.f. A.Y. 2002-03 is that unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier
period is allowable under the new provision, but has to be dealt with in
accordance with the old provision and is subject to the limitation of being
eligible for set-off only against business income and for 8 years. Unabsorbed
depreciation relating to A.Ys. 1997-98 to 2001-02 cannot be set off against
non-business income of A.Y. 2003-04.
Facts :
During the assessment years under consideration the assessee
continued to derive income from the business of merchant banking activity. For
the assessment years under consideration the assessee claimed to set off
unabsorbed depreciation determined in A.Y. 1997-98 and A.Y. 1998-99 against
income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. The assessing officer did not
allow the claim.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who
relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Virmani
Industries Private Limited, (216 ITR 607) held that unabsorbed depreciation was
available to an assessee perpetually for set-off against the gross total income.
Aggrieved, the Department preferred an appeal to the
Tribunal. The President constituted a Special Bench to consider the following
question :
“On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the
unabsorbed depreciation relating to A.Ys. 1997-98 to 1999-2000 is to be dealt
with in accordance with the provisions of
S. 32(2) as applicable for A.Ys. 1997-98 to 1999-2000 as claimed by the
Revenue or the same has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions as
applicable to A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2004-05 as claimed by the assessee.”
Held :
(1) The amendment to S. 32(2), by the Finance Act, 2001
w.e.f. 1-4-2002 is a substantive amendment. Amendment to a substantive provision
is normally prospective unless expressly stated otherwise or it appears so by
necessary implication. The substantive provision contained in S. 32(2) as
substituted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1-4-2002 is prospectively applicable
to A.Y. 2002-03 onwards.
(2) S. 32(2) is a deeming provision. A deeming provision
cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is intended. By a legal
fiction, the amount of depreciation allowance u/s.32(1) which is not fully
absorbed against income for that year is deemed to be the part of depreciation
allowance for the succeeding year(s).
(3) S. 32(1) deals with depreciation allowance for the
current year and S. 32(2) uses the present tense to refer to allowance to which
effect ‘cannot be’ and ‘has not been’ given. This indicates that S. 32(2) speaks
of depreciation allowance u/s.32(1) for the current year starting from A.Y.
2002-03. Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years cannot be
included within the scope of S. 32(2). If the intention of the Legislature had
been to allow such b/fd unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years at par with
current depreciation for the year u/s.32(1), u/s.32(2) would have used past or
past perfect tense and not the present tense. Further, the unabsorbed
depreciation for the period from A.Y. 1997-98 to A.Y. 1999-2000 has been
referred to as ‘unabsorbed depreciation allowance’ and given a special name and
cannot fall within S. 32(1) in A.Y. 2002-03.
(4) The effect of the amendment to S. 32(2) is that
unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier period is allowable under the new
provision, but has to be dealt with in accordance with the restrictions
contained in the old provision and is subject to the limitation of being
eligible for set-off only against business income. It can be carried forward
after a period of eight years.
(5) The legal position of current and brought forward
unadjusted/unabsorbed depreciation allowance in the three periods is summarised
as under :
A. In the first period (i.e., up to A.Y. 1996-97)
(i) Current depreciation, that is the amount of allowance
for the year u/s.32(1), can be set off against income under any head within
the same year.(ii) Amount of such current depreciation which cannot be so
set off within the same year as per (i) above shall be deemed as depreciation
u/s.32(1), that is depreciation for the current year in the following year(s)
to be set off against income under any head, like current depreciation.B. In the second period (i.e., A.Y. 1997-98 to 2001-02)
(i) Brought forward unadjusted depreciation allowance for
and up to A.Y. 1996-97 (hereinafter called the ‘First unadjusted depreciation
allowance’), which could not be set off up to A.Y. 1996-97, shall be carried
forward for set-off against income under any head for a maximum period of
eight A.Ys. starting from A.Y. 1997-98.(ii) Current depreciation for the year u/s.32(1) (for each
year separately starting from A.Y. 1997-98 up to A.Y. 2001-02) can be set off
firstly against business income and then against income under any other head.(iii) Amount of current depreciation for A.Ys. 1997-98 to
2001-02 which cannot be so set off as per (ii). above, hereinafter called the
‘Second unabsorbed depreciation allowance’ shall be carried forward for a
maximum of eight assessment years from the A.Y. immediately succeeding the
A.Y. for which it was first computed, to be set off only against the income
under head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’.C. In the third period (i.e., A.Y. 2002-03 onwards)
(i) ‘First unadjusted depreciation allowance’ can be set off up to A.Y. 2004-05, that is, the remaining period out of the maximum period of eight A.Ys. [as per (Bi) above] against income under any head.
(ii) ‘Second unabsorbed depreciation allowance’ can be set off only against the income under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’ within the period of eight A.Ys. succeeding theA.Y. for which it was first computed.
(iii) Current depreciation for the year u/s. 32(1), for each year separately, starting from A.Y.
2002-03 can be set off against income under any head. Amount of depreciation allowance not so set off (hereinafter called the ‘Third unadjusted depreciation allowance’) shall be carried forward to the following year.
(iv) The ‘Third unadjusted depreciation allowance’ shall be deemed as depreciation u/s.32(1), that is depreciation for the current year in the following year(s) to be set off against income under any head, like current depreciation, in perpetuity.
(6) The argument that the Department having taken a stand in Jai Ushin Ltd. [ITA No. 3412/ (Delhi)/2006] cannot argue to the contrary is not acceptable. Such limitation if placed on the Revenue will also have to apply to the assessee. Further, as a Special Bench is constituted to resolve conflict of opinion amongst different Benches, it will be too harsh to stop the assessee or the Revenue from arguing the case in the way they like.(7) The principle that if two interpretations are possible, then the view in favour of the assessee should be adopted cannot be applied in a loose manner so as to debar a superior authority from examining the legal validity of conflicting views expressed by lower authorities. This rule is applicable where the provision in question is such which is capable of two equally convincing interpretations and not otherwise.
S. 158BC and S. 158BD — Search warrant having been issued in the name of assessee’s husband, proceedings u/s.158BC cannot be initiated against the assessee
-
(2009) 120 TTJ 320 (Mum.)
Smt. Nasreen Yusuf Dhanani v.
ACITIT(SS)A No. 203 (Mum.) of 2002
Block Period : 1-4-1986 to 18-12-1996
Dated : 5-10-2007
The Assessing Officer passed the block assessment order in
the assessee’s case making huge additions of unclosed income. The assessee’s
plea that since there was no search warrant in the name of the assessee, the
Assessing Officer should drop the block assessment proceedings initiated in
her name was not considered.
The Tribunal, relying on the decisions in the following
cases, held in favour of the assessee :
(a) Jt. CIT v. Latika V. Waman, (2005) 1 SOT 535
(Mum.)(b) Dhiraj Suri v. Addl. CIT, (2006) 99 TTJ 525
(Del.)/(2006) 98 ITD 187 (Del.)
The Tribunal noted as under :
(1) Chapter XIV-B is a special procedure for making
assessment of search cases. These provisions of block assessment come into
picture only as a result of search action carried out u/s.132. On reading
the provisions of S. 132(1), it is clear that the section is person-specific
and not premises-specific as argued by the Departmental Representative. The
primary target for conducting a search action is the person who is in
possession of any unclosed income and the search party can enter and search
any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where the undisclosed
assets or incriminating documents are likely to be found in relation to such
person.(2) It is an undisputed fact that there is no search
warrant issued in the name of the assessee. In respect of the Panchnama
issued in respect of the bank lockers, it is seen that the Panchnama is in
the names of husband and the assessee for the simple reason that the bank
lockers were in joint names of husband and wife, the name of husband being
first in all the lockers.(3) As per S. 158BB(1) r.w. S. 132(1), the position is
clear that in order to assess undisclosed income of any person in accordance
with Chapter XIV-B, a search is a prerequisite for the initiation of block
assessment proceedings. Since there is no search warrant issued in the name
of the assessee, the block assessment proceedings u/s. 158BC cannot be
sustained.(4) If in the course of search of husband, any material
incriminating his wife had been found then the proper course for the
Assessing Officer would have been to issue a notice u/s.158BD. When specific
procedures are prescribed for persons who are searched and for persons in
respect of whom incriminating material is found, the AO cannot bypass the
prescribed procedures and issue notice u/s.158BC on a person who was not
subjected to search.
(5) In the case of the assessee, it was intimated to the
Assessing Officer (AO) vide letter dated 15th December 1997 that there is no
search warrant in her name and, hence, the block assessment pro-ceedings
initiated u/s.158BC need to be drop-ped and, even then, the AO has proceeded
to make assessment u/s.158BC. The entire proceedings undertaken by the AO were
bad in law and hence, the assessment is quashed.
University established and adopted by Assembly of State and with the character of a body corporate as per the relevant Act, will fall within the definition of person in section 2(31)(vii).
42 (2010) 127 ITD 164 (Delhi)
O. P. Jindal Global University v. CIT, Rohtak
Dated : 28-5-2010
Section 2(31) read with section 12AA :
1. University established and adopted by Assembly of State
and with the character of a body corporate as per the relevant Act, will fall
within the definition of person in
section 2(31)(vii).2. University charging high fees from the students and not
meant for the benefit of people at large, however satisfying the conditions of
section 2(15) of imparting education i.e., systematic instruction, schooling
or training given to the youth to prepare them for works of life is eligible
for registration as a charitable institution u/s.12AA.
Facts:
The assessee was a university incorporated under the Haryana
Universities Act, 2006. As per the relevant Section of the Haryana Universities
Act, the assessee shall be a body corporate and shall have perpetual succession
and common seal. It shall have the power to sue and to be sued in its name.
However, it is not registered u/s.25 of the Companies Act and also not
registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. The assessee had applied for
registration u/s.12AA of the Act as a charitable institution.
The Ld. D.R. argued that, based on the facts, the university
was not a separate entity and was just an activity carried on by the sponsoring
body and therefore would not constitute a person u/s.2(31)(vii).
Held:
It was held by the Tribunal that the university established
and adopted by Assembly of State and with the character of a body corporate as
per the relevant Act, though not registered u/s.25 of the Companies Act or
though not registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, will fall within the
definition of person in section 2(31)(vii) i.e., an artificial juridical person.
Facts:
The next question after being satisfied that the
assessee-university is person u/s.2(31)(vii) is whether it qualifies for
registration as a charitable institution u/s.12AA.
The Ld. A.R. argued that the assessee-university was engaged
in imparting education in the field of law and administration. Objects of the
assessee-university were primarily aimed at awarding diplomas and degrees
granting fellowships and scholarships.
The definition of charitable purpose which existed at the
relevant point of time was in an inclusive manner to include education as one of
the many activities. The Ld. A.R. also relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Trust, which restricted the
meaning of education to impart instruction, schooling and training to prepare
the youth for the works of life.
The Commissioner argued that the assessee university was
charging higher fees and was not meant for the benefit of people at large.
Held:
The University satisfied the condition of imparting education
and should be thus granted registration u/s.12AA. If the purpose is education,
the requirement will be fully satisfied even if an activity for profit is
carried on in the course of actual carrying out the primary purpose.
Note : The other issues, being minor ones, have been ignored
while reporting the above decision.
Section 4 — Compensation awarded for loss of income earning apparatus is in the nature of capital receipt. However interest awarded on delay in receipt of compensation is revenue in nature and is to be treated as income.
41 (2010) 127 ITD 153 (Mum.)
Spaco Carburettors (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT,
Range 5(3) Mum.
A.Y. : 2003-2004. Dated : 16-3-2009
Section 4 — Compensation awarded for loss of income earning
apparatus is in the nature of capital receipt. However interest awarded on delay
in receipt of compensation is revenue in nature and is to be treated as income.
Facts:
1. The assessee-company was engaged in the business of
manufacturing different types of carburettors. It entered in a Technical
Collaboration Agreement (TCA) with a Japanese company. As per the relevant
clause of the TCA, the assessee was entitled to use any improvement made in
technology of carburettors by the Japanese company. The Japanese company
developed a new product, in respect of which they refused to give any advice
to the assessee company.2. Subsequently the matter was referred to the
International Court of Arbitration and the said Court awarded compensation and
interest in favour of the assessee-company.3. The assessee-company claimed the same as capital receipt
and therefore not taxable. However the Assessing Officer treated the same as
revenue and charged to tax.4. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the compensation was in
the nature of capital receipt, hence out of the purview of tax. However
interest received on the compensation is revenue in nature and therefore
chargeable to tax.5. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted before the Tribunal
that the compensation awarded was in respect of the extinction of a source of
income and profit-earning apparatus and was not awarded for breach of a
contract of revenue nature. Hence it was capital in nature. Similarly interest
on compensation received by the assessee-company was attached to the
compensation awarded by the Court, hence it partakes the character of the
compensation.6. Whereas Ld. DR argued that compensation was awarded for
non-existing income i.e., for future loss which is nothing but revenue in
nature.
Held:
1. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in
respect of the compensation awarded to the assessee-company and treated the
same as capital receipt.2. In respect of interest, the Tribunal held that it is a
well-settled principle that interest always bears the character of revenue
unless it is awarded as profit. Since interest received is for the loss to the
assessee for delay in receipt of compensation which the assessee was entitled
to receive in the year in which the breach occurred, it was of revenue nature
and consequently the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in respect of
interest on compensation.
(a) S. 69 — Investments not recorded in books of account are covered. 695 (b) S. 28(iv) — Condition that chargeable income should arise from business — Purchase of investment, at lower value not covered
Part A — Reported Decisions
47 (2008) 22 SOT 174 (Mum.)
Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v.
ACIT
ITA Nos. 3264 (Mum.) of 2006 and
2300 & 2881 (Mum.) of 2007
A.Ys. 2002-03 and 2003-04. Dated 05.02.2007
(a) S. 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — U/s.69, only
such investments are covered, which are not recorded in books of account.
(b) S. 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — The
condition for invoking S. 28(iv) is that the chargeable income should arise
from the business/profession — Purchase, by way of an investment, at a lower
value is not covered.
Pursuant to an MOU between the assessee-company and the group
of promoters, shares of two group companies were transferred to the assessee at
cost. The Assessing Officer, applying S. 69, made an addition on account of the
difference between the market value and purchase price of the shares. The CIT(A)
held that the benefits derived by the assessee were clearly chargeable to tax
u/s.28(iv) and, accordingly, upheld the addition.
The Tribunal held that addition u/s.69 was not sustainable
and there was no income u/s.28(iv). The Tribunal noted as under :
1. S. 69 :
(a) It was not disputed that the investments purchased were
recorded in the books of account.
(b) U/s.69, only such value of the investments may be
deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year, if they are
not recorded in the books of account. Thus, S. 69 was not applicable to the
instant case.
(c) The first Appellate Authority possibly realising this
difficulty had chosen to invoke S. 28(iv) and not to give a decisive finding
as to whether S. 69 was applicable or not.
(d) There was no allegation or evidence from the Revenue
that the apparent consideration was not the real consideration. The only
grouse of the Revenue authorities was that the assessee-company had purchased
the shares at a price which was much lesser that the market price.
(e) On these facts, therefore, no addition would be
sustained u/s.69.
2. S. 28(iv) :
(a) The condition for invoking S. 28(iv) is that the
chargeable income of the assessee should arise from the business or in the
exercise of profession. There must be a nexus between the business of the
assessee and the benefit the assessee derived.
(b) In the instant case the assessee purchased certain
shares at a certain price and was required to hold these shares for a period
of three years. It was not in dispute that this was an investment made by the
assessee. Hence, irrespective of the fact as to whether these investments were
made in pursuance of the MOU or not, such investments could not be said to be
a benefit arising out of the business of the assessee.
(c) The effect of this Section has been explained by the
CBDT, from which it is clear that when an assessee purchases goods or assets
at a price lower than the market price, under whatever circumstances, the same
cannot be brought to tax u/s.28(iv).
(d) Only if the seller had incurred an expense or a
liability or had provided a facility to the purchaser, then the value in cash
of such expenses or benefit or perquisite shall be treated as income. In the
instant case, the seller had not incurred any expenses or liability, nor had
provided a facility. It sold its shares at a reduced price.
(e) Therefore, the purchase of shares at a particular price
which was below the market price as an investment was not income by any
stretch of imagination. It could not also be deemed as income u/s.28(iv), as
it was neither benefit or perquisite that had arisen to the assessee from the
business or in the exercise of a profession.
S. 40 (a)(i), read with S. 195, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – In view of Board’s Circular No. 786, dated 7-2-2000, no income had accrued or arisen in India either u/s.5(2) or u/s.9 in respect of selling commission, brokerage and other related charges paid
Jt. CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.
A.Y. : 1995-96. Dated : 31-8-2007
S. 40 (a)(i), read with S. 195, of the Income-tax Act, 1961
– In view of Board’s Circular No. 786, dated 7-2-2000, no income had accrued
or arisen in India either u/s.5(2) or u/s.9 in respect of selling commission,
brokerage and other related charges paid to non-resident agents in respect of
sale of tea outside India and, therefore, no tax was deductible u/s.195.
Hence, disallowance made by Assessing Officer was liable to be deleted.
During the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer
disallowed the expenditure on selling commission, brokerage and other expenses
in relation to overseas sales paid to non-residents without tax deduction
u/s.195. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the additions so made.
On revenue’s appeal : the ITAT held that :
1) S. 195 casts an obligation on an assessee to deduct
tax from the payments made to non-residents which are chargeable to tax
under the Act.
2) In Circular No. 786, dated 7-2-2000, the Board has
explained the applicability of S. 195, read with S. 40(a)(i), in relation to
commission paid to foreign agents. As per the said Circular, in respect of
commission and brokerage paid to foreign agents on export sales, no income had
accrued or arisen in India either u/s.5(2) or u/s.9 and no tax was, therefore,
deductible u/s.195. Consequently, expenditure on commission and related
charges payable to non-resident agents could not be disallowed u/s.40(a)(i) on
the ground that tax had not been deducted.
Convergence of AS with IFRS:
Part D : Company Law
31 Convergence of AS with IFRS:
I. The Core Group constituted by the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs has approved the roadmap recommended by Sub-group I in respect of
convergence of Indian Accounting Standards with International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS) for Insurance companies, Banking companies and
non-banking finance companies as under : (http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PressRelease/PDFs/IEPRGOV0604010.pdf)
1. Insurance companies :
(i) All insurance companies will convert their opening
balance sheet as at 1st April, 2012 in compliance with the converged Indian
Accounting Standards.
2. Banking companies :
(i) All scheduled commercial banks and those urban
co-operative banks (UCBs) which have a net worth in excess of Rs.300 crores
will convert their opening balance sheet as at 1st April, 2013 in compliance
with the first set of Accounting Standards (i.e., the converged Indian
Accounting Standards).(ii) Urban co-operative banks which have a net worth in
excess of Rs.200 crores but not exceeding Rs.300 crores will convert their
opening balance sheets as at 1st April, 2014 in compliance with the first
set of Accounting Standards (i.e., the converged Indian Accounting
Standards).(iii) Urban co-operative banks which have a net worth not
exceeding Rs.200 crores and Regional Rural banks (RRBs) will not be required
to apply the first set of Accounting Standards i.e., the converged Indian
Accounting Standards (though they may voluntarily opt to do so) and need to
follow only the existing notified Indian Accounting Standards which are not
converged with IFRSs.
3. Non-banking
financial companies :
(i) The following categories of non-banking financial
companies (NBFCs) will convert their opening balance sheet as at 1st April,
2013 if the financial year commences on 1st April (or if the financial year
commences on any other date, then on the date immediately following 1st
April, 2013) in compliance with the first set of Accounting Standards (i.e.,
the converged Indian Accounting Standards). These NBFCs are :(a) Companies which are part of NSE — Nifty 50
(b) Companies which are part of BSE — Sensex 30
(c) Companies, whether listed or not, which have a net
worth in excess of Rs.1,000 crores.(ii) All listed NBFCs and those unlisted NBFCs which do
not fall in the above categories and which have a net worth in excess of
Rs.500 crores will convert their opening balance sheet as at 1st April 2014
if the financial year commences on 1st April (or if the financial year
commences on any other date, then on that date following 1st April 2014) in
compliance with the first set of Accounting standards (i.e., converged
Indian Accounting Standards).Unlisted NBFCs which have a net worth of Rs.500 crores or
less will not be required to follow the first set of accounting standards
(i.e., the converged Indian accounting standards), though they may voluntarily
opt to do so, but need to follow only the notified Indian Accounting Standards
which are not converged with the IFRSs.II. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
has, vide Circular No. CIR/CFD/DIL/1/2010 dated 5th April, 2010, reviewed
and amended the Equity Listing Agreement with respect to the following in
exercise of its powers under Section 11 and S. 11A of the Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 :(i) Requirement of Auditors’ Certificate for accounting
treatment under schemes of arrangement(ii) Timelines for submission and publication of
financial results by listed entities(iii) Voluntary adoption of International Financial
Reporting Standards by listed entities having subsidiaries.(iv) Requirement of a valid peer review certificate for
statutory auditors(v) Interim disclosure of balance sheet items by listed entities
Adjustment of Refund of F.Y. 2009-10 in F.Y. 2010-11 — Trade Circular No. 15T of 2010, dated 15-3-2010.
Part B : Indirect Taxes
MVAT
30 Adjustment of Refund of F.Y. 2009-10 in F.Y. 2010-11 —
Trade Circular No. 15T of 2010, dated 15-3-2010.
Dealers who have excess credit less than rupees 1 lac in the
return for the period ending on 31st March, 2010 can adjust their refund in the
return to be filed for F.Y 2010-11. But dealers who have already filed the claim
of refund would not be allowed to carry forward to the next financial year. This
facility is provided only for current year, that is, for 31st March, 2010 only.
Change in rate of tax — Trade Circular No. 14T of 2010, dated 31-3-2010.
Part B : Indirect Taxes
MVAT
29 Change in rate of tax — Trade Circular No. 14T of 2010,
dated 31-3-2010.
Commodities under MVAT Schedule Entry A-9A & A-51 currently
being tax-free, the same would continue to be tax-free.
Concessional tax rate for raisins and currants under Schedule
Entry No. C-108(1)(a), tea in leaf and powder form (including instant tea) under
Schedule Entry No. C-108 (1) (b) would continue but with increased MVAT rate
from 4% to 5% w.e.f. 1-4-2010 with the result that rates for these commodities
would be 5% from 1-4-2010.
For aviation turbine fuel (duty paid) covered by Schedule
Entry D-11, when sold within Maharashtra, excluding the geographical limit of
Brihan Mumbai Corporation & Pune District, concessional rate of tax 4% would
continue. It is clarified that this exemption would continue up to 31st March,
2011 or till the Goods & Service Tax Law is implemented in the State, whichever
is earlier.
No extension of concession to timber and dry fruits (other
than raisins and currants) which were taxable 4% up to 31st March, 2010. So
w.e.f. 1-4-2010 they would be taxable @12.5%.
Extension of due date for submission of MVAT Audit Report — Trade Circular No. 13T of 2010, dated 31-3-2010.
Part B : Indirect Taxes
MVAT
28 Extension of due date for submission of MVAT Audit Report
— Trade Circular No. 13T of 2010, dated 31-3-2010.
Due date for submission of MVAT audit report in Form 704 for
the period 2008-09 is extended from 31st March, 2010 to 30th April, 2010 and the
statement of submission of such report along with required documents can be
submitted on or before 10th May, 2010.
Notification No. 22/2010-Service Tax — Dated 30-3-2010.
Part B : Indirect Taxes
Service Tax
27 Notification No. 22/2010-Service Tax — Dated 30-3-2010.
By this Notification, Notification No. 09/2010-Service Tax,
dated the 27th February, 2010 and Notification No. 1/2006-Service Tax, dated the
1st March, 2006 regarding abatement of 70% in case of transport of goods by rail
are amended for a further period of 3 months i.e., the substitution of the word
‘Transportation of Goods in Containers by Rail’ by the words ‘Transportation of
Goods by Rail’ will be effective from 1st July, 2010.
Notification No. 21/2010-Service Tax — Dated 30-3-2010.
Part B : Indirect Taxes
Service Tax
26 Notification No. 21/2010-Service Tax — Dated 30-3-2010.
By this Notification, earlier Notification No.
08/2010-Service Tax, dated the 27th February, 2010 is amended to defer exemption
from levy of service tax on services provided in relation to transport of goods
by rails for specified goods for a further period of 3 months i.e., exemption
shall be effective from 1st July, 2010.
Notification No. 20/2010-Service Tax — Dated 30-3-2010.
Part B : Indirect Taxes
Service Tax
25 Notification No. 20/2010-Service Tax — Dated 30-3-2010.
By this Notification, earlier Notification No.
07/2010-Service Tax, dated the 27th February, 2010 is amended to defer
rescinding of exemption from levy of service tax on services provided by
transportation of goods in container by railway for further period of 3 months
i.e., up to 30th June, 2010.
Declaration to be submitted by specified assessees who were registered before the launch of ACES — Trade Notice No. 1/ ST/ 2010, dated 8-3-2010.
Part B : Indirect Taxes
Service Tax
24 Declaration to be submitted by specified assessees who
were registered before the launch of ACES — Trade Notice No. 1/ ST/ 2010, dated
8-3-2010.
All assesses, who are compulsorily covered for e-returns and
e-payment as aforesaid, who were registered before the launch of ACES and who
yet do not have their login and password, need to apply in the ‘Declaration Form
for ACES’ to the concerned Division/Range officer. The Form can be downloaded
from the website http://www.servicetaxdelhi.gov.in.
Procedure for electronic filing of service tax returns and e-payment of Service Tax — Circular No. 919/09/2010-CX, dated 23-3-2010.
Part B : Indirect Taxes
Service Tax
23 Procedure for electronic filing of service tax returns and
e-payment of Service Tax — Circular No. 919/09/2010-CX, dated 23-3-2010.
By this Circular a detailed procedure has been provided for
electronic filing of service tax return and electronic payment of service tax,
which has been earlier made mandatory w.e.f. 1-4-2010 vide Notification No.
01/2010-ST, dated 19th February, 2010 for the assessee who has paid total
service tax of Rs.10 lacs or more (including amount paid by way of utilisation
of CENVAT Credit) in preceding financial year. The detailed procedure is
available at the website http://www.cbec.gov.in.
Notification No. 24 vide F. No.164/02/-2008-ITA.I, dated 8-4-2010. — REC Bonds.
Part A : Direct Taxes
22 Notification No. 24 vide F. No.164/02/-2008-ITA.I, dated
8-4-2010. — REC Bonds.
The Central Government has notified ten-year Deep Discount
Bond to be issued by Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (REC) by 31st
March 2011 as Zero Coupon Bonds for the purpose of S. 2(48) of the Income-tax
Act, 1961.
The Double Tax Avoidance Treaty and protocol signed between
Mexico and India on 10th September 2007 has been notified to be entered into
force on 1st February, 2010. The Treaty shall apply from 1st January, 2011 for
Mexico and from 1st April, 2011 for India.
Notification No. 22 of 2010; F.No.142/5/2010-SO (TPL), dated 13-4-2010. — Specified Territories for S.90
Part A : Direct Taxes
21 Notification No. 22 of 2010; F.No.142/5/2010-SO (TPL),
dated 13-4-2010. — Specified Territories for S.90
The Central Government has approved notification of (i)
Bermuda, (ii) British Virgin Islands, (iii) Cayman Islands, (iv) Gibraltar, (all
British Overseas Territories); (v) Guernsey, (vi) Isle of Man, (vii) Jersey,
(all British Crown Dependencies); (viii) Netherlands Antilles (an Autonomous
Part of the Kingdom of Netherlands); and (ix) Macau (a Special Administrative
Region of the People’s Republic of China) as ‘specified territory’ for the
purpose of Explanation 2 to S. 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. S. 90 of the
Income-tax Act was amended by the Finance Act, 2009 to enable the Central
Government to enter into an agreement with any specified territory outside
India, in addition to the already existing provision of agreement with the
government of any country. Now the Central Government can initiate and negotiate
agreements for exchange of information for the prevention of evasion or
avoidance of income tax and assistance in collection of income tax with these
nine specified territories.
Income-tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2010 — Notification No. 23/2010, dated 8-4-2010. — Valuation Rules
Part A : Direct Taxes
20 Income-tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2010 — Notification
No. 23/2010, dated 8-4-2010. — Valuation Rules
Rules 11U and 11UA have been inserted, which provide for
determination of fair market value of the property other than immovable property
for the purpose of valuation u/s.56 of the Act. The said rules shall come into
force from 1st October, 2009. These Rules define the valuation of jewelery,
artistic work, quoted shares and securities as well as unquoted instruments for
the purpose of computation of income u/s.56(vii) of the Act.
Additional procedural conditions prescribed for scientific research association and universities, etc. carrying out such activities : Income-tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2009, dated 5-12-2009.
Part A : DIRECT TAXES
27 Additional procedural conditions
prescribed for scientific research association and universities, etc. carrying
out such activities : Income-tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2009, dated
5-12-2009.
The CBDT has prescribed certain information to be furnished
the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax, by the due date of filing the return of
income for these organisations. This information pertaining to the year gone by
includes :
- Detailed note on activities undertaken;
- summary of research articles published in national or international journals
- any patent or other similar rights
- programme of research projects to be undertaken during the forthcoming year
and the financial allocation thereof.
Conditions prescribed to eligibility of the prepaid electronic meal card for FBT purposes u/s.115WB(2)(b)(iii) of the Act : Income-tax (First Amendment) Rules, 2009, dated 5-1-2009.
Part A : DIRECT TAXES
26 Conditions prescribed to eligibility of
the prepaid electronic meal card for FBT purposes u/s.115WB(2)(b)(iii) of the
Act : Income-tax (First Amendment) Rules, 2009, dated 5-1-2009.
FBT provisions were amended to exclude the prepaid electronic
meal cards from the ambit of the head of entertainment and hospitality on which
FBT is levied. Rule 40E has been introduced, which prescribes certain conditions
as stipulated for eligibility for the electronic meal cards for exclusion
purposes.
Section 48 — Actual value of sale consideration cannot be substituted by fair market value without any evidence.
40 (2010) 127 ITD 127 (Delhi)
Moral Trading & Investment Ltd. v. DCIT
A.Y.: 2006-2007. Dated: 30-4-2010
Section 48 — Actual value of sale consideration cannot be
substituted by fair market value without any evidence.
Facts:
The assessee acquired 8,91,181 shares of Hotel HQR in 2002
for a consideration of Rs.12.82 crore (i.e., for Rs.143. 85 per share).
Subsequently, a further subscription of shares was made by the assessee in 2004
and 2005 for Rs.10 per share. All the shares were then transferred to Shri R. P.
Mittal (a majority shareholder in the assessee company) at the rate of Rs.20 per
share. The AO held that transfer of shares was a colourable device to mitigate
tax. He further worked out fair market value of the shares at Rs.185.68 per
share. Capital gains was worked out on the basis of this amount as sale
consideration.
Held:
The hotel was not functional and was under repairs since
quite a long time. As per the valuation done by authorised valuer, the value per
share was coming to Rs.3.19. The Department has not brought any evidence to
rebut the valuation by the authorised valuer. Further, for the shares acquired
in 2004 and 2005 at Rs.10 per share, the assessee had earned profit. Hence, sale
of shares by the assessee to its majority shareholder is not a colourable device
to avoid tax. Hence, the actual value of sale consideration cannot be
substituted by some presumed fair market value.
Note : The other issues, being minor ones, have been ignored
while reporting the above decision.
Medical reimbursement does not constitute fringe benefit as defined in section 115WB
39 (2011) 49 DTR (Mum.) (Trib) 202
Godrej Properties Ltd. v. Additional CIT
A.Y. : 2006-2007. Dated : 3-12-2010
Medical reimbursement does not constitute fringe benefit as defined in
section 115WB.
Facts :
The assessee-company filed its return of fringe benefit
declaring the value of fringe benefit at Rs. 14,48,890. The Assessing Officer,
however, assessed the value of fringe benefit by holding that salary paid to
employee in form of medical reimbursement was liable to Fringe Benefit Tax
(FBT). The CIT(A) held the same to be a perquisite liable to FBT on the ground
that in the given case the amounts of expenditure reimbursed to the employee
were not part of salary package and were in the nature of reimbursement.
Held:
The proviso clause (v) of section 17(2) treats expenditure
actually incurred by the employee on medical treatment for himself or his family
and which is paid by the employer in excess of Rs.15,000 as perquisite taxable
as salary. Thus, reimbursement of medical expense is not taxable as perquisite
if amount does not exceed Rs.15,000 per annum. section 115WB(3) explicitly
excludes perquisites in respect of which tax is paid or payable by the employee.
In the Memorandum explaining the Provisions to the Finance bill it was stated
that perquisites directly attributed to the employees will continue to be taxed
in their hands in accordance with provisions of section 17(2). Also, the Budget
Speech (Paragraph 160 — 194 Taxman 1) categorically stated that ‘At present
where the benefits are fully attributable to the employee, they are taxed in the
hands of the employee; that position will continue’.
From the above, it was held that where benefits which are
fully attributable to employee and are taxed in their hands, would be continued
to be taxed u/s.17(2). Only in case where the benefits are enjoyed collectively
by employees and cannot be attributed individually shall be taxed in employers
hands.
In the case on hand, only where bills have been produced by
the employee to the employer it was a case of reimbursement and to the extent of
the benefit given in section 17(2) proviso (v) the employee need not pay tax.
This is not a case where the attribution of personal benefits directly to an
employee poses problem or a case where it is not feasible to tax the benefit in
question in the hands of the employee. It is only a case where a benefit above a
certain specified amount only is liable to be taxed in the hands of employee.
Such case does not constitute fringe benefit as defined in section 115WB of the
Act.
Exemption u/s.10B — Expenses incurred on on-site development of computer software outside India cannot be excluded from the export turnover for computing deduction u/s.10B — Export proceeds retained abroad in accordance with RBI guidelines is to be includ
38 (2011) 49 DTR (Chennai) (SB) (Trib.) 1
Zylog Systems Ltd. v. ITO
A.Y.: 2003-2004. Dated: 2-11-2010
Exemption u/s.10B — Expenses incurred on on-site development
of computer software outside India cannot be excluded from the export turnover
for computing deduction u/s.10B — Export proceeds retained abroad in accordance
with RBI guidelines is to be included while computing deduction u/s.10B.
Facts:
The assessee was a company engaged in the business of
development of software both by way of on-site development and offshore
development and it has a branch in the USA. It being 100% EOU, had claimed
deduction u/s.10B in respect of the exports of software made. During the
assessment proceedings, the AO had observed that the assessee had total export
turnover of Rs.28.61 crores and out of this amount, the assessee had utilised
the export proceeds to the tune of Rs.15.14 crores in the USA for the purpose of
carrying on export activities. The AO was of the view that since the said amount
had not been received in convertible foreign exchange in India within the
prescribed time u/s.10B(3), the said amount utilised in the USA cannot be
treated as a part of export turnover for computing deduction u/s.10B.
Further, the assessee had incurred expenses of Rs.3.33 crores
in foreign currency on account of payroll, etc., which were claimed to have been
incurred in connection with staff of the foreign branch in foreign country. The
AO also excluded Rs.3.33 crores incurred by the assessee outside India in
foreign exchange considering it as expenses in providing technical services,
while computing deduction u/s.10B. The AO placed reliance on the definition of
‘export turnover’ given in
Explanation 2(iii) to section 10B which excludes expenses incurred in foreign
exchange in providing technical services outside India from export turnover.
The first Appellate Authority allowed the asses-see’s appeal
in respect of inclusion of Rs.15.14 crores in export turnover for computing
deduction u/s.10B, whereas he rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of
inclusion of Rs.3.33 crores incurred by the assessee outside India in providing
technical services.
Held:
The Department had not brought anything on record to show
during the hearing, that the assessee-company was involved in rendering any
managerial consultancy services at foreign country. Also it was not brought on
record that the company was involved in providing the technical services to
other personnel or any outside agency. All the services rendered by the company
were to its staff located at New Jersy for the fulfilment of objects, namely,
development of software. A person cannot provide services to self. Whatever
expenditure has been incurred on foreign soil in a sum of Rs.3.33 crores was
incurred in connection with development of software by the employees of the
assessee-company at foreign branch and nothing has been incurred on managerial
or technical services rendered to outsider in foreign soil and therefore, the
same cannot be excluded from the export turnover.
Regarding the export proceeds of Rs.15.14 crores retained
abroad, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. B. Boda & Co. (P)
Ltd. 223 ITR 271 would apply to this case also, even though the said
decision was on section 80-O wherein it was held that “two-way traffic of
receiving foreign exchange here and sending it back is a ritual which is
unnecessary”.
Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Deferred sales tax liability being difference between payment of net present value and future liability credited by assessee to capital reserve account in its books of account would be a capital receipt and cann
37 (2010) 42 SOT 457 (Mum.) (SB)
Sulzer India Ltd. v. Jt. CIT
ITA Nos. 2944 & 2871 (Mum.) of 2007 &
1317 (Pn.) of 2007
A.Ys.: 2003-2004 & 2004-05. Dated: 10-11-2010
Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Deferred sales
tax liability being difference between payment of net present value and future
liability credited by assessee to capital reserve account in its books of
account would be a capital receipt and cannot be termed as remission/cessation
of liability and, consequently, no benefit would arise to assessee in terms of
section 41(1)(a).
The assessee obtained incentive by way of sales tax deferral
scheme under the package scheme of incentive 1983 (the 1983 scheme) and the
package scheme of incentive 1988 (the 1988 scheme) notified by the Government of
Maharashtra. The aggregate deferral amount under 1983 and 1988 schemes was
Rs.752.01 lakh. The total amount of sales tax collected by the assessee for 7
years from 1-11-1989 to 31-10-1996 was to be paid after 12 years in 6 annual
instalments. However, by an amendment to the Bombay Sales Tax Act in 2002, if
the Net Present Value (NPV) of deferred tax as prescribed was paid, then the
deferred tax was deemed, in public interest, to have been fully paid. The
assessee, following the aforesaid amendment, made repayment of Rs.337.13 lakh on
30-12-2002 as per NPV of the deferred tax as prescribed under Circular No. 39T
of 2002 of Trade Circular dated 12-12-2002. The assessee claimed Rs.414.87 lakh,
being the difference between the deferred sales tax Rs.752.01 lakh and its net
present value amounting to Rs.337.13 lakh, as capital receipt and credited it in
the books of account of the assessee to the capital reserve account. However,
the Assessing Officer, keeping in view that the assessee had obtained the
benefit of payment of whole amount of Rs.752.01 lakh as deduction u/s.43B (in
view of CBDT’s Circular No. 496, dated 25-9-1987) brought the difference of
Rs.414.87 lakh to tax u/s.41(1). The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the
Assessing Officer.
The Special Bench deleted the addition. The Special Bench
noted as under :
(1) The aggregate deferral amount under 1983 and 1988 schemes of Rs.752.01 lakh was to be paid by the assessee after 12 years in six equal annual instalments.
(2) As per the amendment of 2002 to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the assessee was allowed to prematurely pay the entire amount of the deferred sales tax at the Net Present Value (NPV) as prescribed and, on making such payment, the deferred tax shall be deemed to have been fully paid.
(3) The amount paid by the assessee was determined and prescribed by SICOM (which was the implementing agency of the State Government.).
(4) The amount paid by the assessee represented the NPV of the future sum and there had been no remission or cessation of liability by the State Government.
(5) Had the State Government accepted a lesser amount after 12 years or reduced the number or amount of the annual instalments, then it could have been a case of remission or cessation.
(6) Therefore, such payment of net present value of a future liability could not be classified as remission or cessation of the liability so as to attract the provisions of section 41(1)(a) since no benefit arose to the assessee in terms of section 41(1)(a).
Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Once assessee’s bank account was put under attachment, the amount therein is to be considered to be lying with the Department which would indicate constructive payment of advance tax and, therefore, interest u/s.
36 (2010) 134 TTJ 457 (Del.)
S. M. Wahi v. Asst. DIT
(International Taxation)
ITA No. 2779 (Delhi) of 2008
A.Y.: 2007-2008. Dated: 30-4-2009
Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Once assessee’s
bank account was put under attachment, the amount therein is to be considered to
be lying with the Department which would indicate constructive payment of
advance tax and, therefore, interest u/s.234B is not chargeable.
For the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer
charged interest u/s.234B. The assessee submitted that a sum of Rs.4 crores was
received by the assessee on 3rd January 2007. His bank account was attached on
12th January 2007. The amount was lying with the Department. In such
circumstances, the assessee cannot make the payment of advance tax and interest
u/s.234B cannot be imposed upon him. He relied upon the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in the case of CIT v. K K Marketing, (2005) 196 CTR (Del.)
611/(2005) 278 ITR 596 (Del). The CIT(A) held that charging of interest u/s.234B
is mandatory. The Assessing Officer has no discretion to charge or not to charge
the interest. He further observed that the assessee did not apply to the
Assessing Officer for permitting him to limited operation of bank account for
payment of advance tax.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court’s decision in
the above-referred case, held that in the present case, for all practical
purposes the amount of Rs.4 crores was considered to be lying with the
Department which would indicate constructive payment of advance tax. Therefore,
interest u/s.234B cannot be imposed.
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) would arise only when return of income is scrutinised by the Assessing Officer and he finds some more items of income or additional income over and above what is declared in return.
35 (2010) 42 SOT 48 (Ahd.)
Dy. CIT v. Dr. Satish B. Gupta
ITA No. 1482 (Ahd.) of 2010
A.Y.: 2006-2007. Dated: 6-8-2010
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Penalty
u/s.271(1)(c) would arise only when return of income is scrutinised by the
Assessing Officer and he finds some more items of income or additional income
over and above what is declared in return.
A survey u/s.133A was carried out at the premises of the
assessee who was a practising doctor. During the course of the search he
declared unaccounted income of Rs.32.84 lakh. Thereafter, he filed a return of
income declaring income of Rs.37.57 lakh wherein, apparently, the assessee
disclosed unaccounted income of Rs.32.84 lakh which was declared by him during
the course of survey. The assessment was finally completed on an income of
Rs.38.12 lakh after making minor additions. The Assessing Officer also levied
penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of the sum of Rs.32.84 lakh declared during the
course of survey. On appeal, the CIT(A) set aside the penalty order.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Allahabad High
Court in the case of Smt. Govinda Devi v. CIT, (2008) 304 ITR 340/173
Taxman 370, upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting the penalty. The Tribunal noted
as under:
(1) As per clause (c) of the Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c), tax sought to be evaded means the difference between tax on the total income assessed and tax that would have been chargeable on such total income reduced by the amount added.
(2) Since, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer had not made any addition to the returned income, the question of working out any tax sought to be evaded would not arise.
(3) In general, where a case does not fall within clause (a) or clause (b) of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) there cannot be any ‘tax sought to be evaded’ if there is no addition to the returned income.
(4) The assessee would be liable for an action u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of such items only which are discovered by the Assessing Officer on the scrutiny of return of income or after carrying out an investigation and discovering some more items of income not found declared or mentioned in the return of income. Prior to the filing of return of income there is no concept of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
(5) ‘Proceedings’ as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by the issuance of a statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or a search u/s.132 or issuance of a notice u/s.133(6), for example, are only means of collecting evidence against the assessee and are not equivalent to statutory proceedings. Another criterion for finding out whether a particular action is a statutory proceeding or not is to see whether it can be brought to a legal conclusion against the assessee by determining his right to liability.
(6) Merely carrying out a survey u/s.133A does not create any liability against the assessee which is created only through assessment proceedings or through penalty proceedings. Therefore, the Revenue was not correct in its submission that the survey was a ‘proceeding’ and the Assessing Officer having discovered concealment during survey, the assessee would be liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c).
(7) The act of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars should be viewed by the Assessing Officer as done with respect to return of income. The omission or commission or contumacious conduct has to be viewed from the return of income and if certain thing has not been disclosed or has not been furnished therein, only then it can be said that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Prior to this the assessee cannot be said to have done any contumacious conduct on which penalty could be levied.
(8) Merely because certain receipts were not recorded in the books of account or receipts were not issued to the patients, but income therefrom was finally declared in the return of income, there would be no contumacious conduct. For not maintaining books of account or not issuing receipts to the patients for the amount received by the assessee, at best, the books can be rejected by invoking provisions of section 145(3) and income can be estimated in accordance with section 144. Where, however, the Assessing Officer had accepted the income declared in the return of income, then the assessee could not be charged for any contumacious conduct.
When neither any deduction is claimed nor any charge is made to the profit and loss account of any tax or duty, there is no question of disallowing the amount u/s 43B.
60 [2009] 121 ITD 461 (Chennai) (TM)
Dynavision Ltd. vs ACIT, Central Circle – II (1), Chennai
A. Ys.: 1990-91 to 1992-93. Date of order: 26.05.2009
When neither any deduction is claimed nor any charge is made
to the profit and loss account of any tax or duty, there is no question of
disallowing the amount u/s 43B.
Facts:
The assessee showed gross receipts of Rs. 46.10 crore in its
profit and loss account. Against this, the
assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 31.30 crore towards raw material consumed. Out
of the total amount of customs duty of Rs. 15.82 crore, Rs. 4.59 crores
represented the provision made for customs duty in respect of goods lying in a
bonded warehouse. This amount was provided to the raw material purchases
account. Since the imported goods were not released from the bonded warehouse,
they were shown as closing stock in hand and the customs duty payable was
included in this closing stock. The AO made addition on the basis that the
customs duty was not paid but was charged to profit and loss account. On appeal
to Tribunal, the Accountant Member upheld the order of AO while the Judicial
Member held otherwise. Hence, the matter was referred to Third Member.
Held:
The Third Member upheld the order of the Judicial Member. It
was held that section 43B can be invoked only when the assessee claims any tax
or duty. There was no dispute regarding accrual of liability. Even the assessee
accepted that the liability to pay customs duty had accrued. However, the fact
that the element of customs duty was made a part of closing stock had to be
considered. Since the customs duty was included in closing stock, it could not
be said that the assessee claimed the deduction of customs duty. Hence,
provisions of section. 43B could not be invoked and no disallowance u/s 43B was
warranted.
Payments for hiring of trucks does not come within the purview of “works contract”—Hence, provisions of section 194C are not applicable.
59 (2010) 122 ITD 35 (Asr.)
DCIT, Hoshiarpur Range, Hoshiarpur vs Satish Aggarwal & Co.
A. Y.: 2005-06. Date of order: 28.11. 2008
Payments for hiring of trucks does not come within the
purview of “works contract”—Hence, provisions of section 194C are not
applicable.
Facts:
The assessee made payments worth Rs. 17,40,000/- towards
hiring charges of trucks. No tax was
deducted on the said payments. The AO disallowed the expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia)
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the tax was deductible u/s 194C,
as the payments were having the character of “work” as defined in Explanation
III to s. 194C. The contention of the assessee was that there was no contract
between the appellant and the truck owners for carrying goods or passengers;
hence tax was not deductible u/s 194C and no disallowance was warranted.
Held:
Following the decision of Poompuhar Shipping Corpn. Ltd., the
Tribunal held that there was no contract between the assessee and the owners of
the trucks for carrying out any work. The assessee simply hired the trucks and
they were utilised in his business of civil construction. For carrying out any
work, manpower is the sine qua non, and without manpower, it cannot be said that
work has been carried out. Merely providing trucks without any manpower cannot
be termed as carrying out work by the truck owners, for which payment was made
by the assessee. Section 194I was also not attracted as its provisions became
applicable on payments made for the use of capital assets with effect from
1.6.2007. Hence, entering into a contract for carrying out work is not
equivalent to contract for hiring trucks. Consequently, there was no need to
deduct tax u/s 194C, and disallowance
u/s 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
Block of assets, s. 32, 38(2) — Under the scheme of block of assets, (i) Depreciation cannot be disallowed on the ground that some of the assets contained in the block have not been used for the purpose of the business; (ii) the user of an individual asse
58 2010 TIOL 78 ITAT MUM
Swati Synthetics Ltd. vs ITO
A.Y.: 2001-02. Date of order: 17.12.2009
Block of assets, s. 32, 38(2) — Under the scheme of block of
assets, (i) Depreciation cannot be disallowed on the ground that some of the
assets contained in the block have not been used for the purpose of the
business; (ii) the user of an individual asset for the purpose of business needs
to be examined only in the first year when the asset is purchased; (iii)
existence of individual assets in the block itself amounts to use for the
purpose of business. However, proportionate disallowance of depreciation can be
made if an individual asset contained in the block has been used for purposes
other than business.
Facts:
The assessee was carrying on two businesses with one division
at Dombivli and the other in Surat. Though the Surat division had closed down,
the assessee continued to claim depreciation on its assets. The Assessing
Officer (AO) disallowed the proportionate amount of depreciation attributable to
the assets of the Surat division, on the ground that the assets of the Surat
division were not used for the purpose of business. Aggrieved, the assessee
preferred an appeal to the CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held:
The Tribunal discussed in detail the meaning of the term
`depreciation’, considered various statutory provisions which have been amended
consequent to the insertion of the concept of block of assets and also Circular
No. 469, dated 23rd September, 1986 issued by CBDT. It also considered various
judicial pronouncements, examined the principle of commercial expediency and
also examined in detail how the scheme of depreciation on block of assets works,
and held as follows:
(i) Depreciation allowance u/s 32 is a statutory allowance
not confined expressly to diminution in value of the asset by reason of wear
and tear;
(ii) Main objective of introducing the block of assets
concept was only to reduce time and effort spent in detailed record
maintenance;
(iii) If the asset has neither been used for business nor
for non-business purposes, but remained in block of assets, the provisions of
S. 38(2) are not applicable;
(iv) The ratio of the decision of the SB of the Chandigarh
Tribunal in the case of Gulati Saree Centre vs ACIT 71 ITD 73 (Chd)(SB) does
not apply to the present case, since in the case before the SB, the cars owned
by the assessee firm were being used for personal purposes by the partners,
whereas in the present case, assets remained in block of assets and were not
used for non-business purposes like personal use, etc.;
(v) The condition/requirement `used for the purpose of
business’, as provided in s. 32(1) for the concept of depreciation on block of
assets can be summarized as: (a) Use of individual asset for the purpose of
business can be examined only in the first year when the asset is purchased;
(b) In subsequent years, use of block of assets is to be examined. Existence
of individual assets in the block of asset itself amounts to use for the
purpose of business;
(vi) The judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agarwal vs CIT & Anr 267 ITR 768 (Bom) is not
applicable to the facts of the present case, since the issue in the case under
consideration is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the
assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets of the closed unit. The
decision of the Bombay High Court has been distinguished by the ITAT in the
case of G R Shipping Ltd (ITA No. 822/Mum/05 order, dated
17.7.2008)(2008-TIOL-729-ITAT-Mum) by observing that in that case, the asset
in question was not at all put to use.
Section 10A — Section 10A grants a deduction and not an exemption, and section 80AB is not applicable to s. 10A—Deduction u/s 10A is to be allowed while computing income under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession’ and not under `Gross tot
57 2010 TIOL 69 ITAT MAD SB
Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT
A.Y.: 2003-04 & 2004-05. Date of order: 05.02.2010
Section 10A — Section 10A grants a deduction and not an
exemption, and section 80AB is not applicable to s. 10A—Deduction u/s 10A is to
be allowed while computing income under the head `Profits and gains of business
or profession’ and not under `Gross total income’. Deduction u/s 10A is to be
computed without setting off the losses of non-eligible units against profits of
an eligible unit.
Facts :
During the previous year which was relevant to A.Y. 2003-04,
the assessee had two units: one in Chennai and one in Delhi. The unit in Chennai
was engaged in development of software and its profits were eligible for
deduction u/s 10A. The unit in Delhi was engaged in the business of trading.
During the year under consideration, the unit in Delhi had suffered a loss and
the unit in Chennai had earned profits. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 10A
in respect of its entire profits from the unit in Chennai, without setting off
the loss suffered by the unit in Delhi.
The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the computation of
the assessee on the ground that after the amendment of s. 10A, w.e.f. 1.4.2001,
a deduction was to be allowed from the “total income”, and consequently, the
loss suffered by the Delhi unit had to be taken into account.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who
upheld the action of the AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
A special bench was constituted to dispose of the appeal as well as to
adjudicate upon the following question of law:
“Should the business losses of a non eligible unit, whose
income is not eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act, have to be
set off against the profits of the undertaking eligible for deduction under
section 10A, for the purposes of determining the allowable deduction under
section 10A of the Act?”
Held:
(i) Even though s. 10A falls under Chapter III, it has been
mentioned in the section itself that what is to be given is only a deduction
and not exemption. A deduction in respect of profits eligible under s. 10A is
required to be made at the stage of computing the income under the head
“Profits and gains of business and profession” and not from the gross total
income;
(ii) Section 80AB applies to deductions mentioned in
Chapter VI-A. Section 10A does not fall in Chapter VI-A, and hence, s. 80AB
cannot be applied to s. 10A;
(iii) It can be noticed from the language of s. 10A (1)
that a deduction of such profits and gains that are derived by “an”
undertaking, qualify u/s 10A for deduction from the total income. In case the
assessee has more than one undertaking, one has to consider the profits and
gains of that “particular undertaking” which qualifies for deduction u/s 10A.
Again,
s. 10A (4) uses the words “profits and gains of the business of the
undertaking” and not total profits of the business of the assessee. The
distinction between the “undertaking” and the “assessee” is well-known and has
also been noted by the CBDT in Circular F. No. 15/563, dated 13.12.1963. The
deduction u/s 10A attaches to the undertaking and not to the assessee;
(iv) The losses of a unit which is not eligible for
deduction u/s 10A cannot be set off against the profits of the unit which is
eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The loss of the non-eligible unit can be set
off against other incomes or may be carried forward;
(v) If there is more than one undertaking which is eligible
for deduction u/s 10A, and if some of the units have profit and other units
have loss, it would be an entirely different case from the present one. The
decision rendered in this case would not be applicable to such cases.
The Special Bench decided the appeal in favour of the
assessee.
Section 54EC and Circular No. 142/9/2006 TPL, dated 30.6.2006 — Non-availability of bonds qualifying for deduction u/s 54EC is a reasonable cause for not purchasing the bonds within the time specified in s. 54EC—Since the assessee purchased the bonds as s
56 2010 TIOL 60 ITAT (Mum)
Cello Plast vs DCIT
A. Y.: 2006-07. Date of order: 19.01.2010
Section 54EC and Circular No. 142/9/2006 TPL, dated 30.6.2006
— Non-availability of bonds qualifying for deduction u/s 54EC is a reasonable
cause for not purchasing the bonds within the time specified in s. 54EC—Since
the assessee purchased the bonds as soon as the same were available, it was
eligible to claim deduction u/s 54EC.
Facts:
During the year, the assessee sold its factory building which
formed a part of its block of assets. The capital gain of Rs. 49,36,293 arising
from the sale of the factory building was claimed to be deductible u/s 54EC. The
bonds qualifying for deduction u/s 54EC were not available and as a result of
various representations, the CBDT had extended the time period for subscribing
the bonds upto 31.12.2006, vide its Circular No. 142/9/2006 TPL, dated
30.6.2006. Before filing the return of income, the assessee had deposited Rs. 50
lakh through a fixed deposit with the State Bank of India and had in a letter
intimated to the banker that the fixed deposit would be encashed as soon as the
bonds were available. Along with the return of income, the assessee had appended
a note explaining the factual position and stating that it will subscribe to the
bonds as soon as the same were available. The bonds were available on 22.1.2007
and the assessee applied for them on 27.1.2007, whereupon the bonds were
allotted to him on 31.1.2007.
The Assessing Officer held that since the capital asset
transferred formed a part of the block of assets,
s. 50 deems the gain arising on transfer thereof to be a short-term capital gain
arising from the transfer of a short term capital asset. He also held that
though the circular extended the time period up to 31.12.2006, the bonds had
been purchased on 31.1.2007 which was beyond the due date specified. He,
therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A),
who held that following the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in
the case of Ace Builders P. Ltd. 281 ITR 210 (Bom), the assessee was entitled to
deduction u/s 54EC, subject to satisfaction of conditions stated therein. Since
the bonds were not subscribed to by the due date extended by the CBDT circular,
the assessee was held not to be entitled to deduction u/s 54EC.
Held :
On the basis of facts, the Tribunal held that it was an
impossible task for the assessee to comply with the time period laid down u/s
54EC. The delay in purchase due to non-availability of the bonds was held to be
a reasonable cause, and the assessee was held to be entitled to exemption u/s
54EC. The Tribunal also noted that in the case of Ram Agarwal 81 ITD 163, on
similar facts, it had been held by the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled
to claim deduction u/s 54EC. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — If an order passed by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court or that of the jurisdictional High Court rendered prior to or subsequent to the impugned order, the same constitutes a
55 (2009) 34 SOT 541 (Mum.)(TM)
Kailashnath Malhotra vs Jt.CIT
Block period 01.04.1987 to 15.12.1997. Date of order:
12.10.2009.
Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — If an order passed
by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court or
that of the jurisdictional High Court rendered prior to or subsequent to the
impugned order, the same constitutes a mistake as apparent from records and
capable of rectification u/s 254(2).
Certain additions made by the Assessing Officer were
confirmed by the Tribunal. One miscellaneous application filed by the assessee
u/s 254(2), seeking rectification of the Tribunal’s order was dismissed by the
Tribunal. The assessee once again moved another miscellaneous application u/s
254(2) seeking rectification of the Tribunal’s order.
Facts:
The Judicial Member of the Tribunal, in light of the judgment
of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of P.R.Metrani vs CIT [2006] 287 ITR
209 / 157 Taxman 325, recalled the order of the Tribunal on merits. However, the
Accountant Member did not agree with the Judicial Member and dismissed the
miscellaneous application on the ground that successive miscellaneous
applications were not permissible and, further, the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of P.R.Metrani (supra) was not applicable. In view of the
difference of opinion between the members of the Tribunal, the matter was
referred to the Third Member.
Held:
The Third Member held as follows:
1. It is evident that the scope of sub-section (2) is
restricted to rectifying any mistake in the order which is apparent from
records and does not extend to reviewing of the earlier order.
2. It is well-settled that the scope of proceedings u/s
254(2) is confined to rectifying any mistake which is apparent on the very
face of it. If the point needs to be proved on the strength of different
facets of reasoning, the same would become debatable. Once a particular point
falls in the realm of “debatable issue”, it automatically goes out of the
domain of sub-section (2) of section 254.
3. If two views are possible on a particular point and the
Tribunal has preferred one view over the other, no rectification application
lies for impressing upon the Tribunal to choose the other possible view in
preference over the one already adopted by it.
4. If, however, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in
conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court or that of the
jurisdictional High Court, rendered prior to or subsequent to the impugned
order, the same constitutes a mistake apparent from records and capable of
rectification u/s 254(2).
5. Similarly, it will be an error apparent from records, if
the order is not in conformity with the retrospective amendment carried out to
the statutory provision covering the period and point in dispute, subject to
the fulfilment of other conditions prescribed in the Act such as limitation
period, etc.
Section 40(b) — Since section 40(b) uses the term “authorise” and not “quantify”, salary to partners cannot be disallowed merely because amount of salary is not quantified in partnership deed.
54 (2009) 34 SOT 495 (Pune)
Asst.CIT vs Suman Construction
A.Ys.:1999-2000 and 2000-01.
Date of order: 31.12.2008.
Section 40(b) — Since section 40(b) uses the term “authorise”
and not “quantify”, salary to partners cannot be disallowed merely because
amount of salary is not quantified in partnership deed.
Section 119 — CBDT has no jurisdiction to substitute the term
“authorise” occurring in section 40(b) by the term “quantify” in its Circular
No.739, dated 25.03.1996.
Facts:
The salary paid to partners by the assessee firm for A.Ys.
1999-2000 and 2000-2001 was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground
that in the partnership deed filed along with the return of income for
A.Y.1998-99, neither the salary payable to the partners was quantified nor the
manner in which such quantification had to be done was prescribed. By referring
to the CBDT Circular No.739, dated 25.03.1996 [1996] 131 CTR (St.) 53, the
Assessing Officer was of the view that since there was no specified
quantification, the assessee was not entitled to deduction u/s.40(b) in respect
of the salary.
The CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to claim the
deduction for remuneration paid to the partners since the payment of salary to
the four partners was authorised by the partnership deed.
Held:
The Tribunal, upholding the CIT(A)’s order, noted as follows:
1. On reading this section it becomes clear that it does
not make it mandatory to quantify the amount of salary in one of the clauses
of the partnership deed, mainly because of the reason that the monetary limit
or ceiling is otherwise prescribed in the statute itself. The statute has used
the term “authorise” and not the term “quantify”.
2. In respect of the CBDT Circular No.739
(supra) relied upon by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal clarified that the
CBDT cannot issue a circular u/s 119 which tantamounts to detracting from the
provisions of the Act. While interpreting the clause of a statute, there is no
scope for importing into the statute some other words which are not there or
to exclude words which are there.
3. It was also not a case that the impugned taxing
provisions were ambiguous and, therefore, capable of more than one
interpretation. Since there was no ambiguity, there was no question of a
beneficial interpretation to either side. Therefore, the words contained in
the provision must be given a natural meaning as commonly understood in the
legal parlance.
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 37, dated 16-4-2008 — Direct receipt of Import Bills/Documents for Import of Rough Precious & Semi-Precious Stones — Liberalisation.
Given below are the highlights of RBI Circulars.
30 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 37, dated
16-4-2008 — Direct receipt of Import Bills/Documents for Import of Rough
Precious & Semi-Precious Stones — Liberalisation.
Presently, remittances for imports up to US $ 100,000 can be
made even when the import bills/ documents are directly received by the importer
from the overseas supplier.
This Circular has increased this limit to US $ 300,000 in
case of import of rough precious and semi-precious stones by non-status holder
exporters. Hence, non-status holder exporters of rough precious and
semi-precious stones can now make remittances for imports up to US $ 300,000
even when the import bills/documents are directly received by them from the
overseas supplier. Thus, they have been brought on par with non-status holder
exporters who import rough diamonds.
S. 271B : If income of a partner, excluding the income from the firm, less than Rs.10 lacs, not liable to audit u/s.44AB — Penalty deleted.
1) Hitesh D. Gajaria v. ACIT
ITAT ‘K’ Bench, Mumbai
Before J. Sudhakar Reddy (AM) and
P. Madhavi Devi (JM)
ITA No. 992/Mum./2007
A.Y. : 2003-04. Decided on : 22-2-2008
Counsel for assessee/revenue : Deepak Shah/
Manvendra Goyal
S. 271B r.w. S. 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Penalty
for failure to get accounts audited — Assessee, a chartered accountant by
profession, being proprietor and also a partner in a firm — Gross receipts
excluding his share of income from the firm was less than Rs.10 lacs — Penalty
imposed for failure to get the accounts audited — Whether AO justified — Held,
No.
Per P. Madhavi Devi :
Facts :
The assessee was a chartered accountant by profession. He had
a proprietory concern besides being a partner in Bharat S. Raut & Co. During the
year, he received share of profit and remuneration from the said firm, each of
which was more than Rs.10 lacs. However, the gross receipts earned by his
proprietary concern were less than Rs.10 lacs. According to the AO, the
provisions of S. 44AB were applicable. However, the assessee relying on the
opinion of the senior counsel contended that partner’s allocated amounts were
not gross receipts as contemplated in S. 44AB and accordingly, he was not
required to get the accounts audited. However, the AO did not agree and levied a
penalty u/s.271B r.w. S. 274 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the
AO’s order.
Held :
The Tribunal noted that assessee’s major income was not from
profession, but from the share of his profit from the professional firm.
According to it, share of profit cannot be equated with income from profession.
Further, it noted that the assessee had relied on the opinion of the senior
counsel, where-in it was opined that it was not necessary to get the accounts
audited. Therefore, relying on the Jodhpur Bench decision in the case of Dr.
Sunderlal Surana, the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for
the failure to get his accounts audited as required u/s.44AB of the Act.
Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the lower authorities was deleted.
Case referred to :
Dr. Sunderlal Surana v. ITO, (2006) 105 TTJ (Jd) 907
Section 40(a)(i), read with section 2(28A) — Discounting charges paid, cannot be treated as interest in terms of section 2(28A) and, therefore, such amount is not liable for TDS u/s.195.– Also, the same cannot be disallowed u/s 40(a)(i).
53 (2009) 34 SOT 424 (Delhi)
Asst. CIT vs Cargill Global
Trading (I) (P.) Ltd.
A.Y.: 2004-05. Date of order: 09.10.2009
Section 40(a)(i), read with section 2(28A) — Discounting
charges paid, cannot be treated as interest in terms of section 2(28A) and,
therefore, such amount is not liable for TDS u/s.195.– Also, the same cannot be
disallowed u/s 40(a)(i).
Facts:
The assessee company discounted its export sales bills with a
company in Singapore. The discounting charges were disallowed by the Assessing
Officer u/s 40(a)(i) on the ground that the assessee did not deduct tax at
source u/s 195 on the discounting charges which were in the nature of interest
in terms of section 2(28A). The CIT(A) held that the discounting charges paid by
the assessee were not interest, as neither any money was borrowed nor any debt
was incurred. Therefore, no tax was required to be deducted at source from such
payments. He, accordingly, deleted the disallowance.
Held:
The Tribunal, upholding the CIT(A)’s order, noted as
hereunder:
1. As per section 2(28A), interest means sum payable in
respect of any money borrowed or debt incurred. In the instant case, there was
no debt incurred or money borrowed. In fact, it was a case where the assessee
had merely discounted sale consideration receivable on sale of goods.
2. The word `interest’ defined u/s 2(28A) does not include
the discounting charges on discounting of bill of exchange.
3. Though Circular No.65 was issued in relation to
deduction of tax u/s 194A, yet in respect of payment to a resident, the same
would be relevant even for the purpose of considering whether the discount
should be treated as interest or not. The CBDT had opined that where the
supplier of goods makes over the usance bill / hundi to his bank which
discounts the same and credits the net amount to the supplier’s account
straightaway, without waiting for realisation of the bill on due date, the net
payment made by the bank to the supplier is in the nature of price paid for
the bill. Such payment cannot technically be held as including any interest
and, therefore, no tax need be deducted at source from such payment by the
bank.
4. Hence, the assessee was not under obligation to deduct
tax at source u/s 195. Accordingly, the same amount could not be disallowed by
invoking section 40(a)(i).
S. 271(1)(c) — Deduction claimed on the basis of advise of the tax consultant supported by tax audit report — Penalty cannot be levied on the disallowance of the same.
39 (2010) 38 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib.) 101
Yogesh R. Desai v. ACIT
A.Y. : 2003-04. Dated : 1-2-2010
S. 271(1)(c) — Deduction claimed on the basis of advise of
the tax consultant supported by tax audit report — Penalty cannot be levied on
the disallowance of the same.
Facts :
Deduction u/s.80-O was claimed by the assessee which could
not be justified during the assessment proceedings. Finally, the assessee
accepted before the AO that the deduction was claimed erroneously and
inadvertently, as guided by his tax consultant.
Upon disallowance of the same, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was
levied by the AO which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held :
It is settled law that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is a civil
liability and the Revenue is not required to prove willful concealment as held
by the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Dharamendra Textile Processors &
Ors., 306 ITR 277. However, each and every addition made in the assessment
cannot automatically lead to levy of penalty for concealment of income.
Even if some deduction or benefit is claimed by the assessee
wrongly but bona fidely and no mala fide can be attributed, the penalty would
not be levied. The claim of deduction u/s.80-O was claimed on the basis of
advise of the tax consultant supported by tax audit report. Therefore there is
no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the
assessee and hence the penalty was deleted.
Amendment in Service Tax Return ST-3 to capture details of Service Tax Return Preparer. Notification No. 10/2009 — Service Tax, dated 17-3-2009
11 Amendment in Service Tax Return ST-3 to capture
details of Service Tax Return Preparer. Notification No. 10/2009 — Service
Tax, dated 17-3-2009 :
details of Service Tax Return Preparer. Notification No. 10/2009 — Service
Tax, dated 17-3-2009 :
ST-3 form has been amended by this Notification by adding entries for
Identification No. and name of Service Tax Return Preparer.
Exemption on services provided in relation to the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone, and received by a developer or units of a Special Economic Zone, whether or not the said taxable services are provided inside the Special Economic Zone
10 Exemption on services provided in relation to the
authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone, and received by a
developer or units of a Special Economic Zone, whether or not the said
taxable services are provided inside the Special Economic Zone
Notification No. 09/2009-Service Tax, dated 3-3-2009 :
By this Notification the taxable services specified in
clause (105) of S. 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which are provided in
relation to the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone, and
received by a developer or units of a Special Economic Zone, whether or not
the said taxable services are provided inside the Special Economic Zone, are
exempt from the whole of the Service Tax leviable thereon u/s.66 of the said
Finance Act, subject to conditions specified in this Notification.
Reduction in Service Tax rate to 10% plus education cess. Notification No. 08/2009-Service Tax, dated 24-2-2009
9 Reduction in Service Tax rate to 10% plus education
cess. Notification No. 08/2009-Service Tax, dated 24-2-2009 :
Service Tax rate has been reduced from 12% to 10%
w.e.f. 24-2-2009, so that the effective rate will be
10.3%. There is no change in works contract composition rate.
Export of Services Rules, 2005 applicable when benefits accrue outside India Circular No. 111/2009, dated 24-2-2009
8 Export of Services Rules, 2005 applicable when
benefits accrue outside India Circular No. 111/2009, dated 24-2-2009 :
In terms of Rule 3(2)(a) of the Export of Services Rules
2005, a taxable service shall be treated as export of service if “such
service is provided from India and used outside India”. By this
Circular, it has been clarified that export of service may take place even
when all the relevant activities take place in India so long as the benefits
of these services accrue outside India.
Reference from Commissioner, Nashik, seeking clarification in respect of levy of Service Tax on repair/renovation/widening of roads. Circular No. 110/2009, dated 23-2-2009
7 Reference from Commissioner, Nashik, seeking
clarification in respect of levy of Service Tax on
repair/renovation/widening of roads. Circular No. 110/2009, dated 23-2-2009
:
It has been clarified that management, maintenance or
repair of roads are in the nature of taxable services and attracting Service
Tax u/s.65(105) (zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994. In this Circular, activities
called as ‘construction of road’ and ‘maintenance or repair of roads’ have
been categorised as follows :
(A) Maintenance or repair activities :
I. Resurfacing
II. Renovation
III. Strengthening
- IV. Relaying
- V. Filling of potholes
(B) Construction activities :
I. Laying of a new road
II. Widening of narrow road to broader road (such as
conversion of a two-lane road to a four-lane road)
III. Changing road surface (gravelled road to metalled
road/metalled road to black-topped/ black-topped to concrete, etc.)
Filing of claim for refund of Service Tax paid under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, dated 6-10-2007. Circular No. 112/2009, dated 12-3-2009 :
6 Filing of claim for refund of Service Tax paid under
Notification No. 41/2007-ST, dated 6-10-2007. Circular No. 112/2009, dated
12-3-2009 :
In this Circular procedural clarifications have been
given in relation to claiming refund of Service Tax paid under Notification
No. 41/2007-ST, dated 6-102007. which provides exemption by way of refund on
account of specified taxable services used for export of goods.
Clarification under this Circular are in addition to Circulars issued
earlier No. 101/4/ 2008-ST, dated 12-5-2008 and No. 106/9/2008-ST, dated
11-12-2008.
Service Tax on movie theatres.
5 Service Tax on movie theatres.
Circular No. 109/2009, dated 23-2-2009 :
It has been clarified that screening of a movie is
not a taxable service except where the distributor leases out the
theatre and the theatre owner get a fixed rent. In such case, the
service provided by the theatre owner would be categorised as ‘Renting
of immovable property for furtherance of business or commerce’ and the
theatre owner would be liable to pay tax on the rent received from the
distributor. All pending cases to be disposed of accordingly.
S. 115JA(3), CBDT Circular No. 763, dated 18-2-1998 — Credit for MAT can be carried forward for a total of six years and not ‘five assessment years’ mentioned in sub-para 2 of para 45.4 of CBDT Circular No.763 — Statutory provisions prevail over a Circula
-
2009 TIOL 404 ITAT (Mad.)
ITO v.
Data Software Research Company (International) Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 1602/Mds./2008
A.Y. : 2003-2004. Dated : 16-4-2009
Facts :
While assessing the total income of the assessee, a private
limited company, u/s.143(3) the AO had allowed credit for Rs.14,69,706 being
MAT paid in A.Y. 1997-98. Subsequently, the AO issued notice proposing to
withdraw MAT credit of Rs.14,69,706 by passing an order u/s.154. In response
to the show-cause notice the assessee contended that u/s.115JAA(3) MAT credit
can be set off for a period of 5 years immediately succeeding the assessment
year in which the credit became available. The AO did not accept this
contention and passed an order u/s.154 of the Act withdrawing tax credit of
A.Y. 1997-98 on the ground that u/s.115JAA the tax credit of A.Y. 1997-98 was
available for set-off only up to A.Y. 2002-03 and after that it cannot be set
off.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal.
Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held :
The Tribunal held that there is no ambiguity in the
language of S. 115JAA(3). The carry forward is available for a total of six
(1+5) years. The Tribunal observed that the confusion has arisen because of
the language used in CBDT Circular No. 763, dated 18-2-1998. The Tribunal held
that the period of ‘five assessment years’ mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of
paragraph 45.3 of the said Circular contradicts what is stated in Ss.(3) of S.
115JAA. The Tribunal stated that it is trite law that statutory provisions
prevail over a Circular in case of a contradiction between the two. The
Tribunal stated that this position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in
CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries Ltd., 220 CTR 98 (SC). The Tribunal
upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
S. 2(42A), S. 48, S. 49(1)(e), Explanation III to S. 48 — Where assessee transferred the shares held by it to its 100% subsidiary which shares were retransferred by the subsidiary to the assessee and thereafter were sold by the assessee, the assessee was
-
2009 TIOL 383 ITAT (Mum.)
ACIT v.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.ITA No. 2672/Mum./2006
A.Y. : 2000-01. Dated : 2-2-2009
Facts :
The assessee company had purchased 2,06,000 equity shares
of M/s. Trumac Engineering Company Ltd. on 7-11-1994. In the financial year
1995-96, the entire lot of 2,06,000 shares were transferred by the assessee to
its 100% wholly-owned subsidiary, M/s. Hamko Financial Services Ltd., (‘the
subsidiary’). In the financial year 1998-99, the subsidiary transferred back
the said shares to the assessee. During the financial year 1999-2000, the
assessee sold 1,56,000 shares out of the said 2,06,000 shares for a
consideration of Rs.70,20,000. The assessee in its return of income for A.Y.
2000-01 claimed loss on sale of these shares at Rs.14,55,72,296 by adopting
the indexation from 1994-95 i.e., the initial date of acquisition by
the assessee. The AO while passing order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act held
that the assessee was entitled to indexation from the date the shares were
retransferred by the subsidiary to the assessee i.e., financial year
1998-99. Accordingly, the AO computed the indexed cost of acquisition of
shares sold by the assessee to be Rs.11,25,96,594 as against Rs.15,25,92,296
computed by the assessee.
The CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of
the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Meera Khera in ITA No. 5258/M/1998
of A.Y. 1995-96 and the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in
the case of Mrs. Pushpa Sofat v. ITO, 81 ITD 1 (Chd.) upheld the
contention of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held :
The Tribunal after referring to S. 48, S. 49(1)(e),
Explanation to S. 2(42A) and second proviso to S. 48 held that on a conjoint
reading of these provisions it is evident that in calculating long-term
capital gain on sale of shares of Trumac Engineering Company Ltd., the indexed
cost has to be calculated with reference to the cost, holding period and
indexation factor of the first owner i.e., from 1994-95. It held that
the cost has to be indexed from the date the shares were originally acquired
by the assessee company. It stated that the transfer from the assessee to its
subsidiary and retransfer from the said company has got to be ignored, as
provided in the above provisions of the Act. The Tribunal held that there was
no mistake in the capital gain disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly, it held
that the AO was not justified in denying the benefit of indexation from the
initial date of acquisition. It, accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the
Revenue.
S. 139A, S. 272B — Penalty u/s.272B cannot be levied on the deductor for not quoting PAN of deductee in the quarterly statements filed in Form No. 26Q.
-
2009 TIOL 370 ITAT (Bang.)
D. V. Steel Corporation v.
ITO (TDS)ITA No. 907/Bang/2008
A.Y. : 2007-08. Date of Order : 27-2-2009
Facts :
The assessee firm filed quarterly statement in Form No. 26Q
for the 4th quarter of financial year 2006-07 without quoting therein PAN of
the deductees. The Assessing Officer was of the view that not quoting PAN of
deductees was contrary to the provisions of S. 139A(5B) of the Act. The AO
issued notice to the assessee asking it to show cause why penalty u/s.272B(1)
should not be levied for not quoting the PAN of the deductees in the
statement. The assessee submitted non-availability of the same to be the
reason for non-furnishing of PAN in the quarterly statement. The AO did not
find this to be a reasonable cause. He levied a penalty of Rs.10,000.
The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal
where it was contended that not quoting the PAN was for a reasonable cause
since the asses-see was being asked to do something which was im-possible; it
had no statutory right or power to compel the deductee to furnish the PAN; not
quoting PAN was for no fault on the part of the assessee.Held :
The Tribunal noted that there is no mechanism at the end of
the assessee to compel the deductee to give its PAN. The Tribunal was of the
view that the facts of the present case are identical to those before the
Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Financial Co-operative Bank Ltd.
where it has been held that since the rules and the provisions of the Act did
not cast an obligation on the manager of a bank to ensure that Form No. 60
filed by the customer was duly filled in, the failure to comply with the
provisions of S. 139A was on the part of the customer of the bank and not on
the part of the bank. The Tribunal following the reasoning of the said
decision of the Ahmedabad Bench directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The
appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
S. 201(1A) — When no tax is payable by payee, no interest can be charged from payer
47 (2008) 304 ITR (AT) 338 (Jodhpur)
ITO v. Emrald Construction Co. P. Ltd.
ITA No. 357 and 370/Jdpr./2002
A.Y. : 1996-97. Dated : 31-8-2007
S. 201(1A) — In case no tax is payable by the payee, no
interest u/s.201(1A) can be charged from the payer.
The assessee-company had made payment to three companies in
the nature of interest and contractor’s payment, but without TDS on the same.
The Assessing Officer levied interest u/s.201(1A) till the date of assessment
order. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contested that no tax was payable qua
contract or interest payments (incomes) or qua any other incomes of the
recipients, so the question of loss to the Revenue does not arise. Hence, no
interest was leviable u/s.201(1A). The CIT(A) upheld the levy of interest, but
restricted it till the date of assessment order of the recipients. On cross
appeals by the assessee and the Revenue, the ITAT held that
1. The interest to be charged u/s.201(1A) is not a penalty,
but a compensation of revenue loss for the delay in the payments of tax. The
rigours of S. 201 are flexible and not rigid as would not admit any sort of
explanation with regard to non-deduction at source.
2. The charging of interest u/s.201(1A) is definitely
mandatory, but this ‘mandatory’ nature has to take colour from the main charge
of the deduction of tax at source u/s.201. So to say, when the ‘tax’ which was
to be deducted u/s.201 was not payable at all, it would be unjust to conclude
that, in all eventualities, come what may, interest u/s.201(1A) is to be
charged from the deductor.
3. It is certain that the interest is chargeable from the
date on which the tax is due for deduction. The starting point has been
envisaged in the Act but not the end point. The ‘benchmark’ of the end point
is to be decided after taking into consideration various factors. The question
of charging interest up to framing of assessment orders in the hands of the
recipients would not arise, because ‘no tax dues’ are found against them and
as such there was no loss of revenue. Interest cannot be charged for the sake
of charging of interest only, it has to be charged in accordance with a
provision.
4. The interest is chargeable on the amount of tax to be
deducted. In case the chargeable tax at source increases or decreases, the
interest amount varies accordingly. But, in a case where the tax was not
payable at all, then in that case no interest can be charged. The word
‘compensatory’ clearly suggests this conclusion.
Cases relied upon :
(i) Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO, (1993) 202 ITR 454
(Kar.)
(ii) CIT v. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 310 (Guj.)
(iii) Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Mrs. V. P. Damle,
(1986) 157 ITR 812 (Bom.)
(iv) Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1966) 60 ITR
262 (SC)
S. 115JA — AO has no power to scrutinise accounts except as per Explanation — No addition can be made due to reduction in value of inventory and obsolescence loss.
46 (2008) 304 ITR (AT) 123 (Ahmedabad)
Deepak Nitrate v. Dy. CIT
ITA No. 1646 and 1748/Ahd./2004
A.Y. : 1998-99. Dated : 9-4-2007
S. 115JA — Assessing officer has no power to scrutinise the
accounts except as provided in Explanation to S. 115JA and hence no addition can
be made by him on account of reduction in value of inventory and obsolescence
loss for computation of book profit in terms of S. 115JA of the Act.
According to the Assessing Officer the two amounts viz.
(i) provision made for obsolescence loss, and (ii) reduction due to change in
method of inventory valuation should be added back in computation of the book
profits as per S. 115JA. He therefore added the said amounts to the income of
the assessee invoking the provisions of S. 154. The CIT(A) upheld the addition
no. (i) and deleted the addition no. (ii).
On cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue, the Tribunal
observed as under :
(1) Diminution in value of asset is not a provision for any
liability and consequently it would not be a case of reserve.
(2) As per the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, an
amount set apart to become a provision has to be either (i) provision for
depreciation, renewals, or diminution in value of asset, or (ii) provision for
any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial
accuracy. However, the Income-tax Act has included only one part of this
definition for increasing the net profit to determine the book profits and
that is provision for meeting liability other than ascertained liability.
Hence provision for diminution in the value of asset cannot be added back
u/s.115JA.
(3) The change in method of valuation of inventory was
adopted by the assessee being more scientific and was consistently followed.
Even otherwise, it would be a diminution in value of inventories and since
these items had not been found to be wrong by any authorities under the
Companies Act, the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction under the
provisions of the Act to add back such items for calculating book profits.
Case relied upon :
(i) Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 273
(SC)
I. By holding shares, assessee entitled to exercise rights of owner of flat — Whether entitled to depreciation — Held, Yes. II. Forfeiture of application money on non-payment of call money on issue of debentures —Held, Capital receipt
45 (2008) 304 ITR (AT) 167 (Mumbai)
Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.
v. DCIT
A.Ys. : 1997-98 to 2001-2002. Dated : 21-9-2007
I. By virtue of holding the shares, assessee entitled
to exercise the rights of owner in respect of a flat — Whether entitled to
depreciation on flats — Held, Yes.
S. 32 — The assessee purchased the shares of YIL on the
basis of which it got an exclusive right to use and occupy certain flats and
claimed depreciation on the same which was disallowed by the Assessing
Officer, but the same was allowed by the CIT(A) relying on the provisions of
S. 2(47)(vi), S. 27(iii), S. 269UA(d)(ii) and also relevant Supreme Court
judgments.
The Tribunal observed as under :
1. The articles of association of a company engaged in
the business of real estate may provide that a shareholder of particular
shares would be entitled to exercise the rights of owner in respect of
properties owned by the company. Such mode of transfer is duly recognised by
the Legislature in provisions of S. 2(47)(vi), S. 27(iii), and S.
269UA(d)(ii)
2. The meaning of the term ‘owner’ for the purpose of S.
32 although not defined in the Income-tax Act, a reference to Supreme
Court’s decision in various cases can be construed so as to include a person
who can exercise the rights of the owner not on behalf of the owner but in
his own right. The term ‘owned’ as occurring in S. 32(1) should be assigned
a wider meaning. The provisions of this Section are for the benefit of the
assessee and the intention of the Legislature should be interpreted
accordingly.
The Tribunal accordingly allowed the assessee’s claim :
Cases relied upon :
(a) CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR
625 (SC)
(b) Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT, (1999) 239 ITR
775 (SC)
(c) R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC)
II. Forfeiture of application money on non-payment of
call money on issue of debentures —Held, Capital receipt.
The assessee issued partly convertible debentures and
received application money. On non-payment of call money, certain amount was
forfeited by the assessee. The assessee claimed it to be capital receipt not
liable to tax, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) deleted
the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
On Revenue’s appeal, the ITAT held that :
1. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. V.
Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., 222 ITR 344 relied upon by the assessee, is
not relevant because the amount received is not a trading receipt of the
assessee.
2. Since the amount received was in respect of debentures
issued, it is a capital receipt not chargeable to rax.
Cases relied upon :
(1) CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., (2003) 261
ITR 501 (Bom.)
(2) Prism Cement v. Joint CIT, (2006) 285 ITR (AT)
43 (Mumbai)
Set-up date of business is question of fact and depends upon circumstances involved.
44 302 ITR (AT) 1 Pune
Styler India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT 2008
SS ITA 1961 S. 28, S. 37
A.Y. : 1998-99. Dated : 8-4-2008
When business can be said to be set up is a question of fact
and would depend upon the circumstances involved in a particular case.
The assessee-company was set up as a 100% sub-sidiary of S of
Austria with the aim to make available technical expertise to the Indian
industry in three main areas — technical design and con-sultancy services,
systems supplier with respect to vehicle components and parts, sourcing of
vehicle components and parts from India for the global market.
The assessee filed a return for the A.Y. 1998-99 showing a
receipt of Rs.3,91,780 as interest on fixed deposit with the banks and claiming
expenses of Rs.49,27,336 as administrative and selling expenses as against the
receipt. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that expenses of Rs.17,92,600
were capital in nature and that exhibition and launch expenses of Rs.15,65,239
should be disallowed as preliminary expenses.
The assessee explained that repairs, improvement and
innovation expenses were incurred for carrying on the business which was done by
obtaining long lease and in regards to exhibition and launch expense of
Rs.15,65,239, these were incurred after the company was formed on September 15,
1997.
For substantiating its claim, the assessee stated that it had
attended an exhibition in January 1998 at Expo ’98 at Delhi and it had taken a
stall and participated in the exhibition to promote the business interest of the
company and to increase its visibility in the eyes of Indian automotive
industry. The Assessing Officer held that interest income was liable to be
assessed under the head ‘Other Sources’ and expenses claimed amounting to
Rs.49,27,336 were not admissible and were to be disallowed.
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no sufficient
proof to hold that the business had commenced, that all expenses were incurred
by the assessee before setting up of the business and
were not permissible. He upheld assessment of interest income under the head
‘Other Sources’ and did not allow any expenses against the above receipt.
On appeal to the Appellate Tribunal :
Held :
1. That there were details of various activities handled by
the Managing Director during his stay in India and the corporate offices he
visited to carry on discussion with different persons. Even the names of the
persons he met were given. The assessee had also furnished the detailed
qualification of the general manager, marketing, who had met various
prospective clients and given a summary of various activities carried on by
the employee. The assessee had placed on record correspondence exchanged with
various manufacturers of automobiles.
2. The expenditure clearly showed that the assessee had a
building on which rent of Rs.3,10,400 was incurred. It further carried on an
advertisement related to the business it had set up and other miscellaneous
expenses connected with the consultative services the assessee intended to
provide.
3. The assessee participated and took a stall in ‘Auto
Fair’ held in Delhi with the objective of advancing the assessee’s business of
consultancy. The assessee had a place of business; it had qualified people who
could give advice on automobile industry. There was material to show that the
assessee contacted various clients who entered into agreement with the
assessee in the subsequent years and paid fees for consultation to the
assessee.
4. Merely because actual receipts were not shown, it could
not be said that the assessee did not set up its business. When the assessee
was ready to offer advice on matters and problems indicated in the
correspondence with the clients, it was im-material that no fees for the
consultancy were received in the year under consideration. The assessee had an
office from which advice could be given in the automobile industry. All the
correspondence was addressed to a particular address in Pune. The assessee had
machinery to render advice in the technical field. On the above facts, it
could not be held that the assessee did not set up business in the relevant
period.
Cases referred to :
(i) CIT v. Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd.,
(1991) 192 ITR 151 (SC) (para 84)
(ii) Neil Automation Technology Ltd. v. Deputy CIT,
(2002) 120 Taxman 205 (Mum.) (Tribunal) (paras 4,18, 31, 57, 59, 62)
(iii) Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT,
(1954) 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) (paras 4, 10, 13, 17, 29, 35, 52, 59, 60, 61, 75, 77,
81, 85, 92) and many more.
S. 10B, as amended w.e.f. 1-4-2001 — Deduction to be computed w.r.t. profits of EOU unit after reducing losses of non-EOU units — Held, No
43 2009 TIOL 53 ITAT Bang.
DCIT v. M/s Medreich Ltd.
ITA No. 632/Bang./2008
A.Y. : 2004-2005. Dated : 21-11-2008
Whether in view of the provisions of S. 10B, as amended
w.e.f. 1-4-2001, the deduction u/s.10B is to be computed with reference to
profits of EOU unit after reducing the losses of non-EOU units — Held, No.
Facts :
The assessee company, a 100% EOU, was engaged in the business
of manufacture of pharmaceutical products. The assessee company claimed
exemption u/s.10B of the Act in respect of export profits in the EOU Unit and
also the domestic profits thereon. The assessee had not claimed set-off of
business losses incurred in other units but carried them forward. The AO while
assessing the total income first set off the loss of non-EOU unit against the
entire profit of the EOU unit (domestic as well as export) and then allowed
deduction u/s.10B on the residue. As a result, the carried forward benefit
claimed by the assessee was not allowed. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an
appeal to the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee by relying on the
decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of M/s. Webspectrum Software Pvt.
Ltd. in which the Tribunal held that the deduction u/s.10A is to be allowed
without setting off brought forward and current year loss of non-10A unit.
Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held :
The Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order of the
CIT(A). It dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
S. 10A — Assessee owned two STP units — Whether deduction to be computed w.r.t. profits of one unit without setting off loss of other unit — Held, Yes. Whether deduction to be allowed w.r.t. profits and gains derived — Held, Yes. Whether order of CIT u/s.
42 2009 TIOL 41 ITAT Bang.
Tata Consultancy Service Ltd. v. ACIT
ITA No. 590/Bang./2008
A.Y. : 2003-2004. Dated : 14-11-2008
S. 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — A.Y. 2003-04 — Assessee
owned two STP units — During the assessment year STP Unit 1 earned profit and
STP Unit 2 suffered loss — Assessee computed deduction u/s.10A in respect of STP
Unit 1 with reference to its profits and without setting off the loss suffered
by STP Unit 2 — AO accepted the manner of computation adopted by the assessee —
CIT invoked S. 263 and directed AO to compute deduction u/s.10A in respect of
Unit 1 on the profits of Unit 1 after setting off loss of Unit 2 — Whether
deduction u/s.10A is to be computed with reference to profits of an undertaking
without setting off loss incurred by another eligible undertaking — Held, Yes.
Whether deduction u/s.10A is to be allowed with reference to profits and gains
derived by an undertaking — Held, Yes. Whether order of CIT u/s.263 needs to be
set aside — Held, Yes.
Facts :
The assessee company owned two STP units for export of
software. During the A.Y. 2003-04, STP Unit 1 earned profit, whereas STP Unit 2
suffered a loss. The assessee in its return of income claimed deduction u/s.10A
of the Act in respect of Unit 1. This deduction was computed with reference to
profits of Unit 1 without setting off the loss of STP Unit 2. No deduction
u/s.10A was claimed in respect of STP Unit 2.
The Assessing Officer (AO) while assessing the total income
of the assessee, accepted the manner of computation of deduction u/s.10A.
The CIT was of the opinion that deduction allowed u/s.10A in
respect of STP Unit 1 without setting off the loss of STP Unit 2 against income
of STP Unit 1 was not in accordance with law and that the order is prejudicial
to the interest of the Revenue. He accordingly directed the AO to modify the
order and allow deduction u/s.10A after setting off the loss from STP Unit 2
against the profit of STP Unit 1.
Aggrieved with the order of CIT u/s.263, the assessee
preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held :
The Tribunal after considering various judicial precedents
and also the provisions of S. 10A(1), 10A(4), notes on clauses while introducing
amendment to S. 10A(4) by Finance Bill, 2001 held as under :
(1) In S. 10A(1), the word ‘an’ has been used before the
undertaking. Deduction is to be allowed on such profit and gains as are
derived from the undertaking. Hence, to apply the provisions of S. 10A, one
has to consider the profit and gains as derived by an undertaking. It does not
refer to profits and gains as are derived by the assessee. The assessee may be
having more than one undertaking.
(2) Deduction u/s.10A is to be computed on the basis of
profits and gains derived by an undertaking. In the instant case, STP Unit 2
was having a loss and therefore, its loss cannot be set off while ascertaining
the deduction u/s.10A for STP Unit 1.
(3) When the AO has taken one of the possible views, then
the order of the AO cannot be termed as erroneous and the CIT was having no
power to cancel that order u/s.263 of the Act.
The Tribunal cancelled the order passed by the CIT u/s.263 of
the Act. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
S. 143(2), S. 158BC, S. 292BB — For period prior to 1-4-2008 where notice not issued, whether block assessment order without jurisdiction — Held, Yes. Whether S. 292BB applicable to A.Y. 2008-09 and subsequent years — Held, Yes
41 2009 TIOL 38 ITAT Del. SB
Kuber Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
IT(SS)A No. 261/Del./2001
A.Ys. : 1-4-1988 to 25-1-1999. Dated : 14-1-2009
Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 143(2), S. 158BC, S. 292BB — For a
period prior to 1-4-2008 where a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is not issued, the
block assessment proceedings and consequential block assessment order can be
said to be without jurisdiction — Held, Yes. Whether S. 292BB is applicable to
A.Y. 2008-09 and subsequent years — Held, Yes.
Facts :
Search action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out in
the case of the assessee on 21-1-1999. The assessment order dated 29-1-2001
passed u/s.158BC of the Act was silent on the issue of notice u/s.143(2).
Neither before the Assessing Officer, nor before the CIT(A) did the assessee
contend that the assessment framed without issuance of notice u/s.143(2) was
invalid. The assessee in an additional ground before the Tribunal contended that
in the absence of issuance of mandatory legal notice u/s.143(2) of the Act the
block assessment proceedings and consequential block assessment order be held to
be without jurisdiction.
The Revenue raised a plea that in view of insertion of S.
292BB which is inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1-4-2008, the assessee
cannot take the plea that assessment should be held invalid merely for the
reason that no notice u/s.143(2) was issued and the assessee is barred from
taking this plea.
In these circumstances, the question referred to the Special
Bench was whether the assessee who has participated in block assessment
proceedings is precluded from taking any objection that notice u/s.143(2) was
not served upon him or was not served upon him in time, in view of the
provisions of S. 292BB inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1-4-2008 and if
so, since when he can be said to be so precluded.
Held :
The Special Bench of the Tribunal held as follows :
(1) The scope of S. 292BB is that where any assessee has
appeared in any proceedings or has co-operated in any inquiry relating to
assessment or reassessment, then the consequences ensued will be that it will
be deemed that any notice under any provisions of the Act, which is required
to be served on an assessee has been duly served on him and it will further be
deemed to be served in time and in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The assessee is debarred from taking the defence or raise any objection in any
proceedings or inquiry that the notice was :
(a) Not served upon him;
(b) Not served upon him in time; and
(c) Served upon him in any improper manner.
(2) The assessee has a right of being served with the
notice in case proceedings are taken against him and in case of invalid notice
the whole proceedings taken pursuant to that notice would be void ab initio
(subject to provisions of S. 292B) and will have no legal consequences. To
overcome some of the situations, S. 292BB has been brought on the statute as
explained in the Memorandum explaining the provisions as well as notes on
clauses.
(3) Applicability of S. 292BB is not strictly restricted to
issue of notice u/s.143(2), but it is in respect of other notices relating to
any provisions of the Act, which include notice to initiate re-assessment
proceedings and other proceedings also.
(4) Where the statute u/s.292BB deems service of notice, it
will always include issue of notice as service cannot be effected without
issuance thereof.
(5) Where procedural statute creates a new disability or
obligation and imposes new duties in respect of transactions already
accomplished, then the statute cannot be construed to have retrospective
effect. S. 292BB cannot be construed to have retrospective operation and it
has to be applied prospectively.
(6) S. 292BB is applicable to A.Y. 2008-09 and subsequent
years. The assessee is precluded from taking such objection for and from A.Y.
2008-09. Prior to 1-4-2008 i.e., up to 31-3-2008, as per S. 292BB, the
assessee is not precluded from taking any objection regarding invalidity of
assessment/reassessment on the ground of improper/invalid issuance/service of
a notice.
Whether while computing book profit u/s. 115JB, lower of unabsorbed loss or depreciation as per profit and loss account of amalgamated company can be set off against profits of amalgamating company — Held, Yes.
40 2009 TIOL 26 ITAT Bang.
VST Tillers & Tractors Ltd.
v. CIT
ITA No. 588/Bang./2008
A.Y. : 2003-2004. Dated : 21-11-2008
S. 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — A.Y. 2003-04 — Whether
while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act lower of unabsorbed loss or
depreciation as per profit and loss account of the amalgamated company can be
set off against profits of an amalgamating company — Held, Yes.
Facts :
During the year ended 31-3-2003, V.S.T. Precision Components
Ltd. (‘VPCL’), a company which was subsidiary of the assessee company was
amalgamated with the assessee company. The amalgamation, approved by the
Karnataka High Court by its order dated 18th July 2003, was to be effective from
1-4-2002. The terms of amalgamation, as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the order
of the Court, inter alia stated that accumulated loss and depreciation of
VPCL shall be deemed to be the loss and depreciation of the assessee company as
provided u/s.72 of the Act.
The assessee returned an income of Rs. Nil after setting off
business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of VPCL. The assessee computed book
profit u/s.115JB by reducing from profit as per its profit & loss account the
brought forward loss as per profit & loss account of VPCL.
The book profit computed by the assessee was accepted by the
AO in the assessment u/s.143(3).
Subsequently, the CIT was of the opinion that since the
unabsorbed loss was not as per the books of account of the assessee company but
of VPCL, the same cannot be permitted to be reduced from the book profit for
purposes of S. 115JB. He, accordingly, directed the AO to modify the assessment
order by re-computing the tax liability u/s.115JB.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
Held :
The Tribunal noted that the effective date of amalgamation
was 1-4-2002. The Tribunal held that in view of the statutory provisions of S.
72A(1) and also the order of the High Court sanctioning the scheme, the
unabsorbed business loss and also unabsorbed depreciation of VPCL were deemed to
be loss and depreciation of the assessee company. U/s.115JB(2) lower of
unabsorbed loss or unabsorbed depreciation is to be set off against the book
profit. Since the unabsorbed loss of VPCL was lower than unabsorbed
depreciation, the assessee had rightly set off the unabsorbed loss against book
profit. The Tribunal held that the CIT was not correct in directing the AO to
compute book profit without setting off the unabsorbed loss of VPCL. The
Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act.
Whether grant of excessive credit of TDS amounts to escapement of income — Held, No. Whether it can be construed as grant of excessive relief under sub-clause (iii) of Explanation 2(e) to S. 147 — Held, No
39 2009 TIOL 01 ITAT Hyd.
GMR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
ITA No. 1014/Hyd./2007
A.Y. : 2000-2001. Dated : 26-9-2008
S. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — A.Y. 2000-01 — Whether
grant of excessive credit of TDS amounts to escapement of income — Held, No.
Whether grant of excessive credit of TDS can be construed as grant of excessive
relief under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of Explanation 2 to S. 147 of the
Act — Held, No.
Facts :
For A.Y. 2000-01 the assessee company filed its return of
income declaring total income of Rs.11,20,190. During the year under
consideration the assessee had in its profit & loss account admitted receipts of
Rs.3,33,87,112, but had claimed credit for TDS, amounting to Rs.56,30,970, in
respect of entire gross receipts of Rs.25,70,53,996. The Assessing Officer
completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act assessing the total income to be
the same as returned income and granted credit of TDS amounting to Rs.56,27,970.
Subsequently, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings since
he was of the view that as per provisions of S. 199 of the Act credit should be
restricted to the extent of income admitted during the year. In the order passed
u/s.143(3) r.w. S. 147 of the Act, the AO restricted credit of TDS to
Rs.7,34,516.
In an appeal to the CIT(A) the assessee challenged the
reopening of assessment on the ground that grant of excessive credit of TDS
cannot be construed as escapement of income. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening and
held that grant of excess credit of TDS is a case of income being subjected to
excessive relief.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal,
wherein it challenged the reopening of the assessment.
Held :
The Tribunal noted that the words ‘income’ and ‘tax’ have
different connotations and are separately defined in the Act. The tax on income
is on the basis of charge prescribed in Chapter II of the Act. It further
observed that what needs to be assessed under the Act is the income earned by
the assessee. Chapter XIV of the Act prescribes the procedure for assessment.
Once the income is earned, returned and assessed, the collection and recovery of
tax start simultaneously at each stage as prescribed in Chapter XVII of the Act.
The Tribunal observed that as per the scheme of the Act, each stage is a
distinct stage, and each stage culminates into the next. In the present case,
the Tribunal noted that it was dealing with assessment stage.
The Tribunal observed that S. 147 is contained in Chapter XIV
of the Act and deals with income which has escaped assessment. It stated that
when one says that income has escaped assessment, it only means that such income
has escaped the tax net though it was taxable. According to the Tribunal,
granting of excess credit cannot be equated with income escaping assessment. By
granting excess credit everything revolves around correct collection and
recovery of tax. Nowhere income is in picture and if income is not in picture,
where is the question of its escapement ? The Tribunal held that the AO assumed
the jurisdiction wrongly when no income had escaped assessment.
As regards the provision of clause (c)(iii) of Explanation 2
to S. 147 of the Act, the Tribunal noted that the issue is squarely covered in
favour of the assessee by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd.
The Tribunal quashed the order of reassessment.
(a) Ss.(2) and (3) of S. 14A are procedural in nature and, hence, retrospective. (b) All direct and indirect expenses are disallowable u/s.14A, which have relation with income not chargeable to tax. (c) S. 14A applicable to dividend earned by assessee
38 (2008) 26 SOT 603 (Mum.) (SB)
ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P.) Ltd.
ITA Nos. 8057 (Mum.) of 2003 and 183, 1372 and 2048 (Mum.)
of 2005
A.Ys. : 2001-02 and 2002-03. Dated : 20-10-2008
S. 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :
(a) Expenses falling under any head or Section which
are otherwise deductible as business expenditure or under other respective
heads, would call for disallowance to the extent to which those expenses
have been incurred in relation to income exempt from tax.
(b) Ss.(2) and (3) of S. 14A are procedural in nature
and, hence, retrospective.
(c) For purpose of S. 14A what is relevant is to work
out expenditure in relation to exempt income and not to examine whether
expenditure incurred by assessee has resulted into exempt income or taxable
income.
(d) All direct and indirect expenses are disallowable
u/s.14A, which have any relation with income not chargeable to tax under the
Act.
(e) S. 14A would be applicable where shares are held
as stock-in-trade.
(f) Provisions of S. 14A would be applicable with
respect to dividend income earned by assessee engaged in business of dealing
in shares and securities on shares held as stock-in-trade when earning of
such dividend income was incidental to trading in shares.
The assessee-company was engaged in the business of dealing
in shares. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee had exempt dividend
income and, therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed certain expenses in
terms of S. 14A. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.
The Special Bench also held in favour of the Revenue on all
the matters. The Special Bench observed as under :
1. S. 14A has an overriding effect over all other
Sections allowing deductions :
(a) The residence of this Section in the first
sub-chapter, viz., ‘Heads of income’, clearly demonstrates that it
has been made applicable to all the heads of income. If the intention of the
Legislature had been to restrict its application to the expenditure under
heads other than ‘business income’, then it would have been placed under the
relevant sub-chapter instead of the first sub-chapter, which, in turn,
refers to all the heads of income. Therefore, the expenses deductible under
the head ‘Business income’ are not immune from S. 14A.
(b) S. 14A is a special provision which deals with
disallowances of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income
which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The expenses
falling under any head or Section which are otherwise deductible as business
expenditure or under other respective heads, would call for disallowance, in
view of the specific provision of S. 14A, to the extent to which those have
been incurred in relation to the income exempt from tax.
2. Ss.(2) and (3) of S. 14A are retrospective :
(a) In case of substantive provisions, the general rule
is that a provision is normally prospective in nature, unless it is given
retrospective operation expressly or can be so inferred by necessary
implication.
(b) However, in respect of
clarificatory/explanatory/procedural provisions, the date of insertion loses
its significance.
(c) S. 14A was inserted with a view to clarify the
intention of making disallowance in respect of ‘expenditure incurred by the
assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income
under this Act’. This Section declared the intention of the Act ‘since
inception’.
(d) When Ss.(1) itself is clarificatory and then
resultantly retrospective, it is beyond comprehension as to how Ss.(2) and
(3), providing the mechanism to do what is provided for in Ss.(1), can be
construed as substantive and, hence, prospective.
(e) A proviso has also been inserted in S. 14A for
reducing its rigor, which stipulates that no reassessment u/s.147 or
rectification u/s.154 shall be carried out by the Assessing Officer so as to
give effect to the newly inserted provision. That has been done so as not to
disturb the proceedings which have already attained finality in the period
prior to this insertion. However, assessments which are pending at any
stage, either before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) or the Tribunal or
the Higher Courts, would be governed by the mandate of that Section as it is
retroactive. From the above discussion, it is clear that Ss.(2) and (3) are
procedural in nature and, hence, retrospective.
3. Expenditure in relation to exempt income :
(a) The language of Ss.(1) of S. 14A clearly provides
that no deduction shall be allowed ‘in respect of expenditure incurred by
the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the tot
(a) S. 48 — Option to avail benefit of indexation or not is with assessee. (b) S. 70 — Capital gain computed with indexation can be set off against capital gain computed without indexation.
37 (2008) 26 SOT 380 (Mum.)
Mohanlal N. Shah HUF v. ACIT
ITA No. 789 (Mum.) of 2004
A.Y. : 2002-03. Dated : 24-9-2008
(a) S. 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Option to avail
or not to avail benefit of indexation is with the assessee.
(b) S. 70 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Capital loss
computed with indexation can be set off against capital gain computed without
indexation.
During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had sold
shares and units of mutual funds. In respect of shares sold, the assessee did
not claim benefit of indexation, but in respect of units sold of one mutual fund
the assessee opted for indexation. The resultant loss from the units was set off
against the gain from shares.
The Assessing Officer held that though the benefit of
indexation is a privilege allowed to the assessee as S. 48, the same could not
be availed of on a pick-and-choose basis; and that the option to offer capital
gain at the rate of 20% with indexation and at the rate of 10% without
indexation lies with the assessee as S. 112, but before that S. 70 comes into
appraisal and for setting off of any income under the same head it is but
natural that capital gain is to be calculated on the same footing. Therefore, he
disallowed the method adopted by the assessee. The CIT(A) also held against the
assessee.
The Tribunal, following the decision in the case of
Devinder Prakash Kalra v. ACIT, (2006) 151 Taxman 17 (Delhi), held in favour
of the assessee. The Tribunal noted as under :
(1) The computation of income from capital gains is
governed by S. 48. A plain reading of the said provision reveals that a
capital gain from each asset which is transferred has to be computed.
Indexation is allowable while computing the ‘capital gain’ from the transfer
of each long-term capital asset.
(2) As provided in S. 48, option is with the assessee to or
not to avail of benefit of indexation for computation of capital gains on
transfer of each of long-term capital assets.
(3) It is only after computing the capital gains as per S.
48, can it be aggregated by setting off the loss u/s.70 and it is then that
the rate of tax as provided u/s.112 is to be applied.
(4) The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of
Devinder Prakash Kalra v. ACIT, (2006) 151 Taxman 17 (Mag.), has held that
S. 112 is not only a beneficial provision, but is also mandatory provision and
if several transactions have taken place by way of sale of shares, the
assessee can avail of the benefit of indexation in a few transactions and
avail of 10% tax rate in the remaining transactions.
S. 145A — If a change per se is forced upon assessee in valuation of closing stock, corresponding adjustment in opening stock to be carried out for consistency
36 (2008) 26 SOT 141 (Mum.)
Dy. CIT v. Beck India Ltd.
ITA Nos. 383 and 483 (Mum.) of 2005
A.Y. : 2001-02. Dated : 11-9-2008
S. 145A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — If on account of
application of S. 145A, a change per se is forced upon assessee in valuation of
its closing stock, a corresponding adjustment in opening stock has to be carried
out for consistency.
For the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer held
that the assessee was bound to follow the decision of the High Court in
Melmould Corpn. v. CIT, (1993) 202 ITR 789/71 Taxman 47 (Bom.) and that if a
change in method of accounting results in change in value of closing stock, no
corresponding adjustment would be required in opening stock, since such a change
would have the effect of disturbing the accounts leading to a chain reaction,
and, therefore, he added back MODVAT credit balance to closing stock of the
assessee. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to make corresponding
adjustments in the opening stock.
The Tribunal, relying on the decision in the case of CIT
v. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd., (2008) 297 ITR 77/ 168 Taxman 27 (Delhi), upheld
the CIT(A)’s order. The Tribunal noted as under :
1. S. 145A mentions ‘inventory’ and limiting it only to
‘closing inventory’, disregarding the opening inventory, would be not in
accordance with the plain meaning of the term ‘inventory’ used in the Section.
Inventory will necessarily include within its fold both opening as well as
closing.
2. In Melmould Corpn.’s case (supra), the assessee
had made a change in the method of valuation, which was not thrust upon the
assessee, but voluntarily selected by it. Such a change suo motu done
would definitely be different from one, which is statutory inflicted, where an
assessee per se is forced to make an adjustment to value of its
inventory.
3. However, when on account of application of S. 145A a
change per se is forced upon the assessee in the valuation of its
closing stock, a corresponding adjustment in opening stock has to be carried
out for consistency.
S. 2(22)(e) — Amount given by company to director to purchase business premises, returned since deal could not materialise — Could not be treated as deemed dividend.
35 (2008) 26 SOT 95 (Delhi)
Sunil Sethi v. Dy. CIT
ITA No. 2131 (Delhi) of 2007
A.Y. : 2004-05. Dated : 12-9-2008
S. 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — When amount was
given by company to its director for business purposes of company i.e., to
purchase business premises, and said amount was returned since the deal could
not materialise, such amount could not be treated as deemed dividend.
During the relevant year, the assessee, who was a director in
a company and was holding 50% of the share capital of the Company, had received
Rs.30 lacs from the Company by way of an imprest to enable him to make the
payment for a proposed office complex and as the deal could not materialise, the
same was returned to the company. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) held such
amount as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal, following the decision in the case of Dy.
CIT v. Lakra Bros., (2007) 162 Taxman 170 (Chd.)(Mag.), held that provisions
of S. 2(22)(e) were not applicable in the assessee’s case. The Tribunal noted as
under :
1. A sum of Rs.30 lacs was given to him for the purpose of
making advance with respect to certain land dealings which were proposed to be
entered into by the company through the assessee. The assessee was a director
in the company and could lawfully execute certain agreements on behalf of the
company. Such payment was made in pursuance of a resolution passed by the
company.
2. It was not the case of the Revenue that such resolution
did not happen or it was an afterthought story. No material had been brought
on record to suggest that what was explained by the assessee was incorrect.
The sum had been treated as deemed dividend simply for the reason that it was
given to the assessee.
3. The transaction was in the ordinary course of the
business of the company, and there was no intention on the part of the company
to give a loan or advance to the assessee for his individual benefit.
4. It had been demonstrated that in the bank account of the
assessee, in which the said amount of Rs.30 lacs was credited, was always
having balance of more than Rs.30 lacs. So even for a short period the
assessee had not derived any benefit or it could not be said that the said
amount was given to the assessee by the company for his individual benefit.
The amount was lying in the bank account of the assessee, which was not
utilised at all for any purpose.
5. The amount was paid for a very short period for a
specific purpose and there was documentary evidence on record to substantiate
the explanation of the assessee that the amount was given for the business
purposes of the company.
Thus, the said amount could not be treated as deemed dividend
in the hands of the assessee.
S. 254(1) — Oral pronouncement during hearing not order; Tribunal has power to refix cases to prevent miscarriage of justice — Only condition is aggrieved party must get opportunity of hearing.
34 (2008) 119 TTJ 501 (Mumbai)
Mafatlal Securities Ltd. v. Jt. CIT
ITA No. 1127 (Mum.) of 2001
A.Y. : 1996-97. Dated : 10-8-2007
S. 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Oral pronouncement
during the course of hearing is not an order at all; even otherwise, Tribunal
has inherent power to refix the cases to prevent miscarriage of justice or to
grant substantial justice, and the only condition which is required to be
satisfied is that the aggrieved party must be given an opportunity of hearing.
In the course of original hearing, the learned counsel for
the assessee stated that the facts of this case were identical to the facts of
another case decided by this Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal had decided in
favour of the assessee. Hence, the case was heard mainly as a covered case and
the result was pronounced during the course of the hearing itself.
Thereafter, during the course of further study of the files,
the Bench thought that certain observations in the decisions in two cases of
Mumbai Benches were relevant. Hence, the case was released for fresh hearing as
a part heard case so as to confront these two decisions to the assessee. The
learned counsel took a preliminary objection that the Tribunal had pronounced
the order, hence, if any decision was taken contrary to the decision pronounced,
it would amount to review of order and which was beyond its powers. The learned
Departmental Representative supported the approach of the Tribunal where an
adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee before taking any
other view in the matter.
The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of ITAT v. V. K. Agarwal, (1998) 150 CTR 513 (SC)/(1998) 101
Taxman 382 (SC), held that unless the order of the Bench was signed by all the
members of the Bench and was dated, it was not an order of the Tribunal. The
Tribunal noted as under :
1. Legally speaking, oral pronouncement during the course
of hearing is not an order at all. It is only an intimation of likely result
or prima facie conclusion expressed on the basis of the contentions
made by the parties. It is only a procedural aspect and it does not create any
statutory embargo or limitation.
2. No party can proceed further unless it receives an order
in writing and in the case of orders passed by the Tribunal, the limitation
also starts from the date when the order is served. Hence, oral pronouncement
does not give any inherent right or create any limitation with regard to
statutory rights of the parties to the disputes.
3. Even an entry to this effect, in the order sheet signed
by the Members of the Bench would not constitute an order within the meaning
of r. 34 of the ITAT Rules.
4. Even if it is presumed that oral pronouncement during
the course of hearing is an order, then the Tribunal being a Court of plenary
jurisdiction is well within its powers within the meaning of S. 254(1) to
refix it for clarifications before passing an order in writing. The Tribunal
has inherent power to refix the cases in such type of situations to prevent
miscarriage of justice or to grant substantial justice. The only condition
which is required to be satisfied is that the aggrieved party must be given an
opportunity of hearing which has been done in this case.
5. Similarly, the Tribunal before passing a written order
can refix the case suo motu for clarifications so as to appraise the
issue afresh in the light of other facts or material. There is nothing wrong
in it because principles of natural justice are equally applicable to judicial
authorities as these are applicable to the parties to the disputes.
6. Though the Tribunal is not akin to a Court but the
functions discharged by it are similar to a Court, hence, in addition to its
expressed statutory powers, it has got inherent power to pass such orders as
may be necessary for the ends of justice.
The following cases were also relied on by the Tribunal :
1. Oriental Building & Furnishing Co. v. CIT, (1952)
21 ITR 105 (Punj.)
2. Singar Singh & Sons v. CIT, (1965) 58 ITR 626
(All.)
3. CIT v. Dr. T. K. Jairaj, (2002) 172 CTR (Ker.)
584; (2002) 256 ITR 252 (Ker.)
4. Khushalchand B. Daga v. T. K. Surendran, ITO
(1972) 85 ITR 48 (Bom.)
Note : Similar decision was taken by the Pune Tribunal in
the case of CIT v. Jinendra Smelting & Rolling Mills, Misc. Application
No. 65/Pn/2007 in ITA No. 539 (Pn) 2006 reported in 119 TTJ 519.
S. 254(1) — If decision not relied upon by parties at hearing and Bench desires to apply ratio of such decision, natural justice demands that Bench should confront parties with decision and should give opportunity to make submissions w.r.t. such decisio
33 (2008) 119 TTJ 433 (Jab.) (TM)
Vindhya Telelink Ltd. v. Jt. CIT
ITA No. 295 (Jab.) of 2000 and
C.O. No. 19 (Jab.) of 2002
A.Ys. : 1997-98 and 1998-99. Dated : 22-8-2008
S. 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — If any decision is
not relied upon by the parties at the time of hearing and the Bench desires to
apply the ratio of such decision, natural justice demands that the Bench should
confront the parties with such decision and should give an opportunity to them
so that they can make their submissions with reference to such decision.
For the relevant assessment years, the Assessing Officer
disallowed 50% of the expenditure claimed by the assessee assuming that
expenditure towards foreign travel was attributable to the wife of the managing
director, who accompanied him during such visits. The CIT(A) allowed the relief
following the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Appollo Tyres
Ltd. [CIT v. Appollo Tyres Ltd., (1998) 149 CTR 538 (Ker.)/(1999) 237 ITR
706 (Ker.)]. The learned AM upheld the order of the CIT(A) following the same
decision of the Kerala High Court. However, the learned JM reversed the order of
the CIT(A) following various other decisions. It was contended by the assessee’s
learned counsel before the TM that the learned JM has referred to such decisions
which were not relied upon or argued on behalf of the Department.
The Third Member noted as under :
1. If any decision is not relied upon by the parties at the
time of hearing and the Bench desires to apply the ratio of such decision,
natural justice demands that the Bench should confront the parties with such
decision and should give an opportunity to them so that they can make their
submissions with reference to such decision. Admittedly, in this case this has
not been done by the Bench.
2. Therefore, since the decisions were not referred to by
any of the parties at the time of hearing, the learned JM was not justified in
relying upon the same while deciding the issue under consideration.
Service tax levy on goods transport by road services — Circular No. 104/07/2008-ST, dated 6-8-2008.
Part B : INDIRECT
TAXES
Service tax
68 Service tax levy on goods transport by
road services — Circular No. 104/07/2008-ST, dated 6-8-2008.
Certain clarifications have been provided by this Circular as
under :
- Abatement of 75% would be available to the consolidated amount mentioned in
the invoice which includes various intermediary and auxiliary services
provided by GTA and included in the invoice, since these services are not
provided as independent activities but are the means for successful provision
of the principal service, namely, the transportation of goods by road.
- Where service is provided by a person who is registered as GTA service
provider and issues consignment note for transportation of goods by road in a
goods carriage and the amount charged for the service provided is inclusive of
packing, then the service shall be treated as GTA service and not cargo
handling service.
- In case of time-sensitive transportation of goods by road carriage, if the
entire transportation is done by road and the person transporting the goods
issues a consignment note, then the service would be GTA service and not
courier services.
Certain services in connection with sports activities notified u/s.194J : Notification No. 88/2008, dated 21-8-2008 being rendered by the following persons.
Part A : DIRECT TAXES
67 Certain services in connection with
sports activities notified u/s.194J : Notification No. 88/2008, dated 21-8-2008
being rendered by the following persons.
The CBDT has notified the following services in relation to
sports activities as ‘Professional Services’ for deduction of tax at source
u/s.194J of the Act :
- Sports persons,
- Umpires and referees,
- Coaches and trainers,
- Team physicians and physiotherapists,
- Event managers,
- Commentators,
- Anchors, and
- Sports columnists.
Certain clarifications have been issued by RBI to all the banks in connection with TDS on 8% Savings (Taxable) Bonds, 2003 : RBI/2008-2009/121 — Ref. DGBA.CDD. No. H — 1311/13.01.299/2008-09, dated 5-8-2008.
Part A : DIRECT TAXES
66 Certain clarifications have been issued
by RBI to all the banks in connection with TDS on 8% Savings (Taxable) Bonds,
2003 : RBI/2008-2009/121 — Ref. DGBA.CDD. No. H — 1311/13.01.299/2008-09, dated
5-8-2008.
While referring to the earlier Circular issued by RBI —
DGBA.CDD No. H-3024/13.01.299/2007-08, dated September 19, 2007, RBI has issued
further clarifications on deduction of tax at source on the subject matter based
on clarifications received from the CBDT. The important clarifications in this
matter are as under :
- The date from which TDS needs to be deducted is 1-6-2007. Accordingly,
irrespective of the date of investment, if interest is credited to the account
of any investor after 1-6-2007, TDS needs to be deducted.
- Forms 15H and 15G (exemption from TDS) need to be accepted if the conditions
mentioned for the said forms are satisfied.
- In case of cumulative schemes of investment of bonds, TDS would be deducted as
and when the interest is credited, irrespective of the fact that the payment
is made at the end of the tenure of the bonds.
- Lower deduction/NIL deduction certificate from the tax authorities is required
in case of charitable institutions, for exemption from deduction of tax at
source from interest eligible by such institutions.
Clarification issued by CBDT in connection with TDS on service tax u/s.194J of the Act : Letter F.No./275/3/2007-IT(B), dated 30-6-2008.
Part A : DIRECT TAXES
65 Clarification issued by CBDT in
connection with TDS on service tax u/s.194J of the Act : Letter F.No./275/3/2007-IT(B),
dated 30-6-2008.
The Board had earlier clarified vide Dir.Tax/761, dated
5-5-2008 that TDS would not be applicable on Service tax element of rental
income u/s.194I of the Act. In this Notification it has been clarified that
u/s.194I, what has been covered is rental income, whereas u/s.194J, what is
covered is any sum paid as professional or technical fees. Hence, for the
purpose of S. 194J, TDS needs to be deducted on the total amount including
Service tax element.
Relaxation in the rules for mention of PAN in the TDS returns : Internal instructions.
Part A : DIRECT TAXES
64 Relaxation in the rules for mention of
PAN in the TDS returns : Internal instructions.
As per the recent Circulars of CBDT, threshold limits were
laid for mentioning of PAN of deductees in the TDS return. However, due to
practical difficulties faced by the assessees, these norms have been relaxed.
Now, if the payment has been made for the total amount of TDS and the
information is available of few deductees, then return can be filed with the PAN
of those deductees. Consequently, the cor-rection return can be filed after
obtaining the PAN of the remaining deductees. Care needs to be taken that the
amount paid as TDS needs to tie up with the total amount mentioned in both the
TDS returns.
Scrutiny of Tax Audit Report during assessment proceedings : Instruction No. 9/2008, dated 31-7-2008 (reproduced below)
Part A : DIRECT TAXES
63 Scrutiny of Tax Audit Report during
assessment proceedings : Instruction No. 9/2008, dated 31-7-2008 (reproduced
below)
Kindly refer to the above.
2. C&AG and carried out a systems review of Third Party
certification under the Income-tax Act. This has brought out that in many cases
the information available in the tax audit reports is not being properly
analysed during assessment proceedings, thereby defeating the very purpose of
providing for audit of accounts in the Income-tax Act i.e., to ensure
that correct deductions are claimed by the assessee. It is, therefore,
reiterated that the tax audit reports as well as other statutory audit reports
should be critically examined along with connected records and other available
evidence, and the information as available in these reports should be
effectively utilised while finalising the assessment of cases selected under
scrutiny. In case of e-filed returns as well as annexure-less returns, tax audit
reports and other statutory audit reports should be requisitioned and thoroughly
examined during the assessment proceedings in cases under scrutiny.
3. With effect from 10th August 2006, the ‘Accountants’ are
required to indicate in Form 3CD as to whether a certificate has been obtained
from the respective assessees regarding payment relating to any
expenditure/taking or accepting of loans or deposits or repayment of the same
through account-payee cheque/bank draft (refer points 17(h) and 24(c) of Form
No. 3CD).
4. Instead of simply relying on the said certificates given
by the assessees, the assessing officers should undertake a test-check of such
transactions while completing the assessments under scrutiny. Results of such
test-check should also be kept on record. In case, any violation is noticed,
follow-up action as per the Income-tax Act including invoking of penal
provisions should be taken.
5. In cases where any factual misrepresentation by the
Accountants is observed, suitable action should be taken against them as
provided u/s.288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
This may be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict
compliance.
Norms relaxed for the corporate tax returns : Internal instructions.
Part A : DIRECT TAXES
62 Norms relaxed for the corporate tax
returns : Internal instructions.
- Scrutiny not to be undertaken for top 1000 companies, provided no disputes are
pending against them.
- If the Tax Department has not raised a demand for more than 10 lakhs over and
above the taxes paid by the companies, then those companies’ cases would not
be picked up for scrutiny.
- In case the capital infused in the company is more than 50 lakhs, then the
case may be picked up for scrutiny.
- In case the company has filed for any tax exemption viz. S. 10A, S.
80IC etc., then the return may be picked up for scrutiny.
Income limits for assigning cases to Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners, Income-tax officers increased, applicable with effect from 1-4-2011 — Instruction No. 1/2011, dated 31-1-2011.
Full texts of
relevant Notifications, Circulars and Forms are available on the BCAS website :
www.bcasonline.org
68 Income limits for assigning cases to Deputy
Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners, Income-tax officers increased, applicable
with effect from 1-4-2011 — Instruction No. 1/2011, dated 31-1-2011.
Metros charges for the
above purpose would be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata,
Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune.
S. 147 — Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated if time limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) has not expired.
Part
A: Reported Decisions
31 (2010) 37 DTR (Chennai) (TM) (Trib) 1
Super Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
A.Y. : 2002-03. Dated : 12-3-2010
S. 147 — Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated if time
limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) has not expired.
Facts :
Notice u/s.148 was issued to the assessee before the expiry
of the time limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2). The assessee preferred an
appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity of reassessment
proceedings. The CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee.
Upon further appeal to the Tribunal, the learned Accountant
Member took a view that the decision in the case of Trustees of H.E.H. The
Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT, 242 ITR 381 (SC) pertains to A.Y.
1962-63 which was prior to the amendment to S. 147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Prior
to the amendment of S. 147, there was no provision equivalent to cl. (b) of
Expln. 2 in the amended S. 147. In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., 291 ITR 500 (SC) it
has been held that so long as the ingredients of S. 147 are fulfilled, the AO is
free to initiate proceeding u/s.147 and failure to take steps u/s.143(3) will
not render the AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when
intimation u/s.143(1) had been issued. Applying the jurisdictional High Court’s
decision in the case of ITO v. K. M. Pachiappan, 311 ITR 31, the validity of
reassessment proceedings was upheld.
The learned Judicial Member distinguished the decision of
Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. on the ground that the notice u/s.148 was
issued after the expiry of the time available for issuing notice u/s.143(2) in
that case. Following the latest decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the
case of CIT v. Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd., 308 ITR 249, the notice
issued by the AO u/s.148 was quashed.
Upon difference of opinion between the members, the matter
was referred to the Third Member.
Held :
The Department wants to interpret the expression ‘no
assessment has been made’ in the clause (b) of Expln. 2 in the amended S. 147 to
mean that it also includes situation where assessment u/s. 143(3) is still
possible but not yet made. If this interpretation is to be accepted, it will set
at naught the fundamental principles underlying S. 147.
As per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
several cases :
(a) the proceedings are said to have commenced once the
return is filed, and(b) the proceedings terminate when,
(i) the return is processed u/s.143(1) and the time to
issue notice u/s.143(2) is over,(ii) assessment is made u/s.143(3) or,
(iii) assessment is no longer possible u/s. 143(3).
Proceedings u/s.147 can be initiated only after the earlier
proceedings have terminated as mentioned in (b) above.
Observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh
Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. has to be understood in the right perspective. It
is mentioned that failure to take steps u/s.143(3) will not render the AO
powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation u/s.143(1)
had been issued. The failure of the AO which the Court is talking about will be
deemed to have occurred only when the hands of the AO are tied down by law and
he is unable to initiate the proceedings u/s.143(3). Hence order passed
u/s.143(3) read with S. 147 was quashed.
Capital gains vis-à-vis business income — If shares are held for more than a month, they should be treated as investment and profit on the sale should be charged as short-term capital gain — When shares are held for less than a month, gain on them should
Part
A: Reported Decisions
30 (2010) 37 DTR (Ahd.) (Trib) 345
Sugamchand C. Shah v. ACIT
A.Ys. : 2005-06 & 2006-07. Dated : 29-1-2010
Capital gains vis-à-vis business income — If shares are held
for more than a month, they should be treated as investment and profit on the
sale should be charged as short-term capital gain — When shares are held for
less than a month, gain on them should be treated as profit from business.
Facts :
The assessee is engaged in the business of weaving job work
and grey cloth. He declared profits from sale of shares as short-term capital
gains and long-term capital gains. The AO treated the entire sum as business
income on the basis of frequency of transactions and holding periods.
The CIT(A) partly confirmed the order of the AO and
short-term capital gains were treated as business income. However, long-term
capital gains were not allowed to be treated as business income.
Held :
The assessee has shown the transactions in shares as
investment and not as stock-in-trade. It has been shown consistently for several
years in the past and the Department has not challenged the book-keeping or
accounting of shares as investment. No contrary materials or facts have been
pointed out by the Revenue to show that facts in the current year are different
than the facts in earlier years. The entire portfolio has been valued at cost as
at the end of the accounting year. If in the past, the Department has accepted
the sale of shares of holding of more than a year as investment and profits
thereon has been assessed under the head ‘Capital Gains’, then there is no
reason to hold differently this year.
In respect of short-term capital gains, the assessee has
discharged the onus of showing that it is making investment, but the Revenue is
able to show that there are high frequencies and low holdings in many
transactions of shares indicating that the assessee has some intention of
purchasing and selling shares as a trader. Considering the totality and
peculiarity of the facts of the case, it was held that the assessee is neither
fully acting as a trader nor as investor. Therefore, a criterion was fixed for
determining as to when he is acting as trader and when as investor. Accordingly,
if shares are not held even, say, for a month, then the intention is clearly to
reap profit by acting as a trader and he did not intend to hold them in
investment portfolio. If a person intends to hold his purchases of shares as
investment, he would watch the fluctuation of rates in the market for which a
minimum time is necessary, which was estimated at one month. Where shares are
held for more than a month, they should be treated as investment and on their
sale short-term capital gains should be charged. When shares are held for less
than a month, gain on them should be treated as profit from business.
S. 115JB—provision made for premium payable on mezzanine capital is an ascertained liability.
Part
A: Reported Decisions
29 Srei International Finance Ltd. v. ACIT
123 ITD 480 (Del. ITAT)
A.Y. : 2001-02. Dated : 4-4-2008
S. 115JB—provision made for premium payable on mezzanine
capital is an ascertained liability.
Facts :
The assessee had debited a sum of Rs.88 lakhs in the profit &
loss account as provision for mezzanine capital. On enquiry, the assessee
provided a detailed explanation of the nature of this provision, that this
provision was made for redemption of unsecured bonds in the nature of mezzanine
capital (Tier II) and was provided over the tenure of bond. The assessee also
submitted that the amount of provision is ascertained at the time of issue of
bonds and therefore the liability is ascertained liability, thus allowable
u/s.115JB. However, the AO disallowed the same holding it as unascertained
liability. The CIT(A) allowed the same on the reasoning that the bonds issued by
the company would earn annual interest for the bond holder. The bond holder was
also required to be paid premium and face value. The premium was to be paid in
equal instalments spread over the tenure of bonds. The provision of Rs.88 lakhs
related to premium payable in respect of previous year under consideration. The
CIT(A) further observed that the face value of the bond is known and amount of
premium and tenure of bond is also fixed. Therefore, it cannot be said the
premium payable on bonds is incapable of being computed in a scientific manner.
Accordingly addition was deleted.
Held :
The Tribunal held that there was a scientific method of
calculation of liability on account of premium on mezzanine capital. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the liability was not an ascertained liability.
Notification No. 42/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
Part B : INDIRECT TAXES
SERVICE TAX UPDATE
Notifications :
86 Notification No. 42/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
W.e.f. 1-7-2010, by this Notification the Central Government
has exempted taxable services of commercial or industrial construction when
provided wholly within the airport.
Notification No. 41/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
Part B : INDIRECT TAXES
SERVICE TAX UPDATE
Notifications :
85 Notification No. 41/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
W.e.f. 1-7-2010, by this Notification taxable services as
enlisted in the Notification have been exempted when provided wholly within the
port or other port or airport.
Notification No. 39/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
Part B : INDIRECT TAXES
SERVICE TAX UPDATE
Notifications :
84 Notification No. 39/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
W.e.f. 1-7-2010, by this Notification Service Tax Rules, 1994
have been amended to provide in respect of services of transportation of
passengers by air, an invoice or bill or challan shall include ticket in any
form.
Notification No. 38/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
Part B : INDIRECT TAXES
SERVICE TAX UPDATE
Notifications :
83 Notification No. 38/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
W.e.f. 1-7-2010, by this Notification commercial or
industrial construction services provided wholly within the port or other port
for construction, repair, alteration and renovation of wharves, quays, docks,
stages, jetties, piers and railways have been exempted.
Notification No. 37/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
Part B : INDIRECT TAXES
SERVICE TAX UPDATE
Notifications :
82 Notification No. 37/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
This Notification has amended the principal Notification
17/2009 — Service Tax, dated 7th July, 2009 (as lastly amended by Notification
No. 40/2009 — Service Tax, dated 30th September, 2009) by inserting the new
entry No. 18 to grant exemption to service provided by airport authority or any
other person in any airport in respect of the export of the goods.
Notification No. 36/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
Part B : INDIRECT TAXES
SERVICE TAX UPDATE
Notifications :
81 Notification No. 36/2010 — Service Tax, dated 28-6-2010.
Finance Act, 2010 has brought in the net of service tax eight
new services and has modified the scope of nine existing services. Since these
changes become effective from 1-7-2010, activities that are covered under
taxable service categories due to such additions or modifications, would attract
service tax from this date. This Notification exempts service tax on the partial
or full amount received in advance by the service provider before 1-7-2010 in
respect of services that have become taxable from that date if in respect of
such advances such taxable services are provided after that date. However this
exemption would not apply to commercial training or coaching services and
renting of immovable property service.
S. 48 r.w. S. 147 — Capital gain to be taxed on basis of provisions of S. 48 and not on basis of fair market value as determined by valuation officer — assessment on the basis of DVO report not permissible.
Part A — Reported Decisions
46 (2008) 22 SOT 156 (Delhi)
Tej Pratap Singh v. ACIT
ITA No. 4601 (Del.) of 2004
A.Y. 1999-2000. Dated : 31-12-2007
S. 48 read with S. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Capital
gain is to be computed and taxed on the basis of provisions contained u/s.48 and
it cannot be computed on the basis of fair market value of asset as determined
by Valuation Officer. Therefore, assessment cannot be reopened for taxing
capital gain in respect of an asset on basis of market value of asset as
estimated by DVO.
The return filed by the assessee was processed u/s.143(1)(a)
by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the said
assessment of the assessee for the reason that the valuation of the land was
estimated by the DVO at Rs.2,73,281 as against Rs.50,000 shown by the assessee
and, thus, the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the A.Y.
1999-2000.
The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment proceedings
by calculating capital gains based on the fair market value as determined by the
DVO. The CIT(A) confirmed the computation done by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal ruled in the assessee’s favour. The Tribunal
noted as under :
(a) A perusal of the reasons recorded for the reopening
indicates that the belief of the Assessing Officer regarding escapement of the
income of the assessee is based only on the opinion of
the Valuation Officer. It is also found that before making reference no
material was examined by him. He did not see any other material except the
valuation report. Thus, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has not made
any judicial application of mind for reopening the assessment. He made no
enquiry from the assessee or from any other source, nor examined the books of
account of the assessee before doing so.
(b) In view of the above facts, the reference made to the
Valuation Officer was itself illegal and consequently non est. When the
reference itself is illegal and non est in law, the report submitted in such
reference, consequently, cannot be relied upon to initiate reassessment
proceedings. It was so held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of
Brig. B. Lall v. ITO, (1981) 127 ITR 308. In the case of Bhagwandas
Jain v. Dy. CIT, (2000) 246 ITR 632, the M.P. High Court, after following
the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Brig. B. Lall (supra),
held that reopening of the assessment on the basis of valuation report is not
valid.
(c) On examination of S. 48, it is clear that the capital
gain is to be computed by deducting from the ‘full value’ of the consideration
received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the cost
of acquisition and expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer. The
expression ‘full value of the consideration’ does not mean ‘market value’ or
‘fair market value’ of the asset transferred. Hence, capital gain tax cannot
be computed and levied with reference to the market value determined on the
basis of valuation report.
(d) The Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Ashok
Soni v. ITO, (2006) 10 SOT 39 (URO), after following the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the cases of K. P. Verghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597
and CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd., (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) and
various other authorities, has observed as under :
“In the absence of any material with the Assessing Officer
to show that the assessee has received more amount than the consideration
shown in the concerned document, the action of the Assessing Officer in
substituting the full value of consideration by the fair market value as
stated by the Departmental Valuation Officer in his report for computation of
capital gains was not valid.”
(e) The valuation report is an expert opinion at the most.
In relation to the transaction of transfer such report cannot be treated to be
proof of the fact that there is some underhand dealing and consideration has
passed more than what is disclosed.
S. 54 — Where several flats in same building and contiguous with each other, treated as one house for purposes of S. 54.
Part A — Reported Decisions
45 (2008) 22 SOT 58 (Hyd.)
Prabhandam Prakash v. ITO
ITA No. 147 (Hyd.) of 2007
A.Y. 2001-02. Dated : 25-1-2008
S. 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Where several flats are
purchased in same building and are contiguous with each other, they would be
treated as one house and not several houses for purposes of S. 54.
For the relevant A.Y., the assessee claimed exemption
u/s.54/54F in respect of investment in 3 adjoining flats on the same floor and
one flat on another floor. Two of these flats were occupied by the assessee and
the other two flats were let out.
The Assessing Officer denied the exemption on the ground that
all the flats were independent, having separate kitchens and with no
inter-connection. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.
The Tribunal allowed the exemption to the assessee in respect
of the 2 flats occupied by him after considering the decisions in the following
cases :
(a) Shiv Narain Chaudhari v. CWT, (1977) 108 ITR 104
(All.)
(b) B. B. Sarkar v. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 150 (Cal.)/7
Taxman 239
(c) K. G. Vyas v. Seventh ITO, (1986) 16 ITD 195 (Bom.)
(d) CIT v. Kodandas Chanchlomal, (1985) 155 ITR
273/23 Taxman 579
(e) D. Anand Basappa v. ITO, (2004) 91 ITD 53
(Bang.)
(f) Smt. Hansa Bai Sanghi v. ITO, (2004) 89 ITD 239
(Bang.)
The Tribunal noted as under :
1. Where several flats are purchased in the same building
and are contiguous to each other, they would be treated as one house and not
as several houses. Whether one or more municipal numbers are given is of no
consequence. The purpose is to see whether the assessee and his family are
using those several dwelling units for their residence or not.
2. However, where the assessee, after acquiring the new
property has not put it to use for his own residence but has let it out, it
means that it was not meant for immediate residence. In the present case, out
of the four flats acquired, two flats on the first floor were occupied by the
assessee and the remaining two were let out. Therefore, respectfully following
the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kodandas Chanchlomal (supra),
we hold that the assessee be given pro rata exemption in respect of the
two flats occupied by him.
S. 195 — Interest payable for failure to deduct tax at source only on sum not paid and not on sum deductible
Part A — Reported Decisions
44 (2008) 300 ITR (AT) 317 (Bang.)
Mrs. Meena S. Patil v. ACIT (Intl. Taxation)
ITA No. 224 (Bang.) of 2006
A.Y. 2002-03. Dated : 29-3-2007
S. 195, S. 201(1A) — Assessee purchased immovable property
from a non-resident — Failure to deduct tax u/s.195 — Sum deductible calculated
at rates in force much higher than tax actually payable by seller according to
assessment order — Interest payable for failure to deduct tax at source only on
sum not paid and not on sum deductible.
Facts :
The assessee purchased immovable property in Bangalore,
paying a sum of Rs.25,00,000 on March 05, 2001 and the balance sale
consideration of Rs.75,00,000 at the time of registration of the sale deed,
i.e., October 23, 2001, but failed to deduct TDS on such payments made. The
seller paid an advance tax of Rs.4,25,126 and filed a return on July 18, 2002,
in which long-term capital gains of Rs.16,80,782 were disclosed in respect of
the property purchased by the assessee. The seller filed a revised return on
March 23, 2003, declaring an income of Rs.62,28,370 and also paid interest
u/s.234B and u/s.234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The total amount paid was
Rs.10,30,674. The assessee received an order S. 201(1A), by which liability of
interest of Rs.75,560 was imposed. The assessee filed an appeal and the
Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated March 31, 2004, cancelled the order
u/s.201(1A). The Assessing Officer passed a fresh order u/s.201(1A) on October
20, 2004, by which a demand of Rs.4,78,640 of interest up to October 31, 2004
was raised. The assessee filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed
by the Commissioner (Appeals).
On appeal to the ITAT, the Tribunal held the following on
various grounds of appeal :
Ground no. 1 :
As per the assessee, the AO was not competent to pass an
order u/s.201(1A) in October, 2004, especially when the earlier order was
cancelled by CIT(A) vide order in March, 2004.
While placing reliance on Ashok & Co. v. CIT, (1992)
195 ITR 786 (Karn.) and VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT, (2007) 289 ITR 286
(Del.), it was held that CIT(A), by order dated 31st March 2004, cancelled the
order as according to him the principles of natural justice were not followed
and it was unnecessary to mention that the order may be remanded. Thus, the AO
was competent to pass a fresh order.
Ground no. 2 :
The applicability of S. 195 — Held that the agreement of sale
of the property clearly mentioned that the sellers were non-resident as the
address mentioned in the agreement showed that they were residing abroad. There
was no evidence to suggest that the assessee was in a belief that the sellers
were residents. Hence, the assessee was liable to deduct tax u/s.195.
Ground no. 3 :
Period for which interest u/s.201(1A) is to be levied and the
amount on which it has to be levied — Held that interest u/s.201(1A) can be
charged only up to the date of payment of tax by payee. Further, the total tax
payable by seller was Rs.12,74,629 of which Rs.4,25,126 was paid in advance, and
hence the tax payable was only 8,49,503. However, the total tax deductible at
the rates in force was 19,38,000.
Held that when the Revenue was not paying any interest to the
deductee on the amount so deductible by charging interest from the deductor,
then it was not justifiable to charge interest from the deductor. Interest was
chargeable on the amount of tax actually paid. The wording in S. 201(1A) is that
interest to be charged on such tax which was not paid. Accordingly interest
u/s.201(1A) was chargeable on the sum of Rs.8,49,503 from the date on which the
tax was deductible.
Cases referred to :
(i) CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (2007)
288 ITR 379 (Delhi) and many others.
II. Travelling expenses incurred by non-employees allowable if for business. 691 IV. Sponsorship, prize money revenue expenditure for business purposes. 691 VI. Repairs of building owned by assessee used by directors for residence, allowable expenditu
Part A — Reported Decisions
43 (2008) 112 ITD 57 (Kol.) (SB)
JCIT, Special Range 16 Kolkata v. ITC Ltd.
A.Y. 1997-98. Dated : 7-9-2007
In the reported case the Tribunal has considered various
grounds which have been described in the case as fact-I, fact-II and so on. Out
of XI grounds, the following grounds appear to be more relevant and important.
Fact-II :
Travelling expenses incurred even by non-employees is
allowable if it is for the business.
The assessee-company claimed deduction of Rs.40.91 crores
towards travelling expenditure, out of which Rs.58.30 lakhs was incurred in
connection with travelling of auditors, retainers, consultants, etc. The company
disallowed on its own Rs.8.92 lakhs under Rule 6D. The AO disallowed balance
Rs.49.38 lakhs, as it had not been incurred by the employees or executives of
the company. He further disallowed 1% of the claim of Rs.33.72 lakhs over and
above the said disallowance on account of possibility of personal and pleasure
trips. The CIT(A) deleted the addition. On Revenue’s appeal, the ITAT upheld the
order of CIT(A) on the following grounds :
(1) The assessee had various factories, godowns, stock
points apart from branches and offices at various locations.
(2) The travelling expenditure was very much incurred for
the business.
(3) It is immaterial whether it is incurred by the employee
or non-employee.
(4) The AO had nowhere brought on record that the
expenditure was not incurred for the business.
Cases referred to :
(i) ACIT v. Perfect Project Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 16
(AT) Calcutta Bench
(ii) Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR
749 (Guj.)
(iii) Dinesh Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 254 ITR 673
and a few more.
Fact-IV :
Expenditure for sponsorship, prize money, etc. is revenue
expenditure for the purposes of business.
Payments made to clubs by the assessee included expenditure
for sponsorship, prize money, etc. The AO disallowed the same, observing that
the same was not incidental to the business. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by
following the earlier appellate order for A.Y. 1994-95. On Departmental appeal,
the ITAT upheld the order of CIT(A) and allowed the expenditure on the following
grounds :
(1) The assessee submitted proper details in respect of the
expenditure which was incurred by it for sponsorship of events.
(2) Nowadays it is very common to sponsor some sports or
events to advertise the products of the company or for the company’s corporate
image.
(3) The AO has not given any congent reason for disallowing
the expenditure.
(4) The said expenditure is very much revenue expenditure
for the purposes of business.
Case referred to :
(i) CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co., (1999)
240 ITR 9 (Delhi).
Fact-VI :
Repairs to the building owned by the assessee-company used by
its directors for residence is an allowable expenditure. Secondly, expenditure
on reinstallation of machinery from one factory to another factory is not
capital expenditure.
(A) The assessee-company incurred expenditure on repairs to
buildings, which included repairs to company flats. The said flats were
exclusively used by the directors and the higher executives of the company.
The AO disallowed 25% of such claim on the ground that the personal element in
the expenditure could not be ruled out.
(B) The assessee-company also incurred expenditure on
repairs to machinery, which included expenditure on reinstallation of Loga
machine at Bangalore factory. The said machine was brought from company’s
Saharanpur factory. The AO disallowed the same as it was a capital
expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted both the additions. On Revenue’s appeal, the
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s order and referred to the following :
(A) (1) The flats were owned by the assessee company
and were utilised by the assessee-company’s directors and executives.
(2) Hence, the expenditure incurred on maintenance
cannot be said to be personal nature just because the flats are occupied
by the directors for their residence.
(3) The expenditure incurred by the company for
personal benefit of directors cannot be considered as personal expenditure
of assessee company, since the assessee and the employees are two
different entities.
Regarding the installation expenditure of machinery it held
that :
(B) (1) The machinery from Saharanpur has been shifted
to Bangalore unit for its effective utilisation.
(2) This has not resulted into any addition to the
assets of the assessee-company and hence it cannot be considered as
capital expenditure.
Cases referred to :
(i) Sitapur Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR
160
(ii) Otis Elavators Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT, (1992)
195 ITR 682
Fact-IX :
S. 36(1)(iii) – The interest on borrowed funds is an allowable expenditure if the assessee has sufficient own funds to justify interest-free advances to sister concerns.
The assessee borrowed money and claimed deduction of interest paid thereon. The assessee had also made interest-free advances to its subsidiaries. The AO disallowed the interest by calculating notional interest @ 18% p.a. on loans to subsidiaries, observing that interest-free advances were made to subsidiaries out of borrowed funds. The CIT(A) deleted the addition. On Departmental appeal, the ITAT upheld the order of CIT(A) and allowed the interest on the following grounds:
- The AO has not made a case that these advances were not made in the course of business for commercial expediency and for the purpose of business.
- The assessee is making such interest-free advances to its sister concerns since long, during the regular course of business.
- The assessee has shown substantial profit to justify the claim of the assessee to have made advances out of own fund.
Cases referred to:
CIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd., (2006) 280 ITR 525 and a few more.