Pages

Saturday, March 22, 2014

ITR Volume 362 : Part 1 (Issue dated : 24-3-2014)


 

INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR)--PRINT AND ONLINE EDITION

ONLINE EDITION

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT

Appeal to High Court --Power of court to frame questions of law--Decision of Supreme Court in CIT v. Mastek Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 252 (SC)--High Court refusing to admit questions on allowability of exemption in respect of profits arising out of fluctuation in rate of foreign exchange--Special leave petition--Supreme Court--Direction to High Court to consider matter in light of CIT v. Mastek Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 252 (SC)--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 260A-- Convergys India Services P. Ltd. v. CIT . . . 194

----Substantial questions of law--Non-resident--Taxability in India--Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payment to non-resident--Whether procurement fees payable to non-resident not taxable in India, whether procurement services in nature of commercial services, and whether disallowance of payment under section 40(a)(i) proper--Questions of law--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 9(1)(i), (vii), 40(a)(i), 260A-- Directorate of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Black and Veatch (I) P. Ltd. . . . 198

HIGH COURTS

Income --Disallowance of expenditure in earning tax-free income--Computation of disallowance--Tribunal remanding matter to Assessing Officer to compute disallowance in light of decision of jurisdictional High Court--Finding of fact--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 14A-- CIT v. Ceat Ltd. (Bom) . . . 201

----Housing society permitting developer to construct on its land--Agreement stating developer will pay compensation to society and its members--No change in ownership of land--Grant of consent not transfer of land or any rights--Amounts paid by developer to members under independent contract--Individual members offering receipts to tax and taxed in their hands--Amounts paid to members not income in hands of assessee--Not taxable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 2(24), (47)-- CIT v. Raj Ratan Palace Co-operative Housing Society (Bom) . . . 210

Penalty --Concealment of income--Claim for depreciation of a huge sum found to be not genuine--Imposition of penalty--Valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- CIT v. Morgan Finvest P. Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 219

Reassessment --Notice--Condition precedent--Tangible material to show escapement of income from assessment--Assessment after enquiry--Reasons for notice must be compelling--Assessment after enquiry relating to exemption under section 10B--Notice on ground that exemption was wrongly computed--Notice not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Moser Baer India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 227

PRINT EDITION

ITR Volume 362 : Part 1 (Issue dated : 24-3-2014)

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

HIGH COURTS

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal --Rectification of mistakes--Application for rectification--Duty is limited to points raised before Tribunal--Aspects and contentions not raised by parties--Pleadings, evidence or material to which Tribunal’s pointed attention not drawn in course of proceedings--Tribunal not expected to unearth evidence or material to which its attention not drawn by parties--Tribunal justified in not rectifying mistake--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 254(2)-- Dholadhar Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 111

Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) --Assessment on basis of voluntary statement of managing director of assessee--Tax paid without retracting voluntary statement--No case of retraction before Commissioner (Appeals)--Commissioner (Appeals) deleting addition on ground addition cannot be sustained only on basis of admissions and acquiescences--Not permissible--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Kermex Micro Systems (India) Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (AP) . . . 13

Appeal to High Court --Capital gains--Full value of consideration--Memorandum of understanding reflecting higher sale price but agreement to sell and sale deed recording lower figure--No material to suggest excess consideration actually paid--Limited use of land allowed to purchaser--Fifty per cent. of land likely to be reserved--No evidence other than memorandum of understanding to controvert evidence--Cost of acquisition--Without further evidence, Assessing Officer could not substitute valuation of registered valuer--Concurrent factual finding of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal--No question of law--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 260A-- CIT v. Hiraben Govindbhai Patel (Guj) . . . 59

Assessment --Special audit--Approval of Commissioner--No requirement of recording elaborate reasons for approval--Approval cannot be mechanical--Terms of reference sent by Assessing Officer, views of Assessing Officer and those of assessee available before Commissioner--Approval not without application of mind by Commissioner--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 142(2A)-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

----Special audit--International transactions--That reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer whose order binding on Assessing Officer--Does not make provisions for direction for special audit subject to powers of Transfer Pricing Officer--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 92CA, 142(2A)-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

----Special audit--Natural justice--Assessee submitting elaborate reply to notice under section 142(1) showing cause against special audit--Requirement of adherence to rules of natural justice satisfied--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 142(2A)-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

----Special audit--Writ--Whether accounts and related documents and records complex within meaning of section 142(2A) to be decided by Assessing Officer--Power of court limited to examining whether discretion exercised objectively and there was valid material before Assessing Officer to infer complexity--No requirement that “books of account†should be examined by Assessing Officer before directing special audit--On facts, accounts including documents, records and other material before Assessing Officer did make issues complex requiring special audit--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 142(2A)--Constitution of India, art. 226-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

Business expenditure --Disallowance--Payments exceeding prescribed limit otherwise than by crossed cheques or crossed bank drafts--ONGC acquiring lands from farmers and farmers forming a society--Society receiving amounts from ONGC and distributing to farmers--Payments not expended by society and would not come within meaning of expenditure either under section 40(a)(ia) or section 40A(3)--No disallowance could be made--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 40(a)(ia), 40A(3)-- CIT v. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC and Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society (Guj) . . . 92

----Disallowance--Payments on which tax deductible at source--ONGC formulating a scheme to acquire oil field land area from farmers by compensating them--ONGC forming a society for maintaining individual account of each farmer and co-ordinating all matters with ONGC--No element of works contract--Society receiving amount and distributing to farmers--Society not a sub-contractor--Society need not deduct tax at source on payments made to each of farmers--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 194C-- ITO v. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society (Guj) . . . 87

----Disallowance--Payments prohibited by law--Effect of insertion of Explanation to section 37(1) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962--Secret commission and specimen distribution to public servants--Disallowable--Matter remanded to Tribunal for deciding question of allowability of deduction in light of Explanation to section 37(1)--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37(1), Expln. -- CIT v. Dhanpat Rai and Sons (P&H) . . . 7

Business income --Remission or cessation of liability--Unexplained purchase--Addition on ground liability for sum not carried over in following year--Fact that credit entry for sum was first entry in ledger of concerned party--Appellate authorities justified in deleting addition--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 41(1)-- CIT v. Nandadevi Sales Agency (Cal) . . . 5

Charitable purpose --Charitable trust--Exemption--Investment in immovable property--Major portion of income of trust spent towards construction of commercial complex--Objects clause of bye-laws of trust not showing construction of commercial complex is object of trust--Commercial complex not used for any of objects of trust--Donations received considered as normal donation and not as donations towards corpus fund--Assessee not entitled to exemption--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 11-- Kamma Sangham v. Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) (AP) . . . 30

Export --Exemption--Export oriented undertaking--Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)--Power to admit additional evidence--Assessee seeking to produce documents in support of claim for exemption as export oriented unit--Remand report called for from Assessing Officer not dealing with merits of claim but only referring to adjournments sought by assessee--No dispute as regards assessee’s status as a 100 per cent. export oriented unit for earlier year--Return filed within due date and copy of green card and certificate from chartered accountant produced--Failure to go into merits of claim and dismissal of appeal on technical ground of lack of vigilant prosecution--Not proper--Appeal to High Court--Orders of Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) set aside and matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 10B--Income-tax Rules, 1962, r. 46A-- Venture Metal Products P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 122

International transactions --Arm’s length price--Determination--Dispute Resolution Panel directing Transfer Pricing Officer to make proportionate adjustment on total sales to associated enterprise only and no adjustment on non-associated enterprise--Tribunal deleting addition on ground unit compared by Transfer Pricing Officer not comparable to assessee--Whether there was any other comparable unit or any other unit to be considered by Transfer Pricing Officer--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 92CA-- CIT v. Manaksia Ltd. (Cal) . . . 56

Penalty --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Stay of recovery pending appeal--Marketing expenses paid to associated enterprise--Revised return withdrawing deduction--Imposition of penalty on ground revised return filed to get over determination of arm’s length price--Quantum appeal pending before High Court--Assessee paying full amount of tax and twenty-five per cent. of penalty--Tribunal ought not to have directed assessee to deposit further sum for staying outstanding demand of penalty--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- Deloitte Consulting India P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Bom) . . . 46

----Concealment of income--Wrong claim of deduction--No finding that explanation offered by assessee not bona fide--No penalty imposable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- CIT v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. (Karn) . . . 160

Reassessment --Notice--Assessing Officer accepting assessee’s objections on ground there was no evidence to connect assessee with properties in tax evasion petition to have been acquired by assessee out of undisclosed income--Assessing Officer admitting contents of tax evasion petition factually incorrect--Assessing Officer instead of terminating proceedings thereafter inviting assessee to cross-examine complainant--Impermissible--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 148-- Pradyot K. Misra v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 24

----Notice--Validity--Change of opinion--Issue regarding tax deducted at source considered in original assessment and ad hoc disallowance of payments made--Notice of reassessment to disallow payments on ground tax deduction at source had not been made--Notice not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Transwind Infrastructure P. Ltd. v. ITO (Guj) . . . 67

----Notice--Validity--Notice after four years--Condition precedent--Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Assessee creating provision at a time when its income was exempt from tax--Write back of provision subsequently and fact disclosed in return--Amount not taxed--Notice seeking to tax amount after four years--Not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- National Dairy Development Board v. Deputy CIT (Guj) . . . 79

----Notice--Validity--Scrutiny assessment and partial disallowance of a particular amount--Notice on ground there should have been total disallowance of amount--Notice not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Siddhi Vinayak Transport v. Asst. CIT (Guj) . . . 72

Recovery of tax --Private company--Liability of directors--Recovery from directors not permissible if director proves non-recovery not attributable to gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part--Company having substantial dues towards bank--Debts Recovery Tribunal directing recovery of bank’s dues by sale of properties of company--Balance due to bank supplied by directors from their personal resources--Directors agreeing to forgo their loans to company in order to have its name struck of register of companies--Facts establishing that non-recovery of tax due from company not attributable to gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on part of directors--Recovery of tax dues of company personally from directors not permissible--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 179(1)-- Jashvantlal Natverlal Kansara v. ITO (Guj) . . . 115

Search and seizure --Block assessment--Undisclosed income--Assessment of third party--Limitation--Information given to Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over assessee after completion of assessment of person against whom search conducted--Not a valid satisfaction--Notice issued to assessee thirty-four months after framing of assessment of person against whom search conducted--Notice beyond reasonable time--Block assessment and additions made thereon not justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 158BE-- CIT v. Umesh Chandra Gupta (Delhi) . . . 1

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS

Non-resident --Advance ruling--Jurisdiction of Authority--Bar where question already pending before income-tax authority--Meaning of “question already pending†--Only after issue of notice under section 143(2) can question be said to be pending before income-tax authority--Mere filing of return not sufficient--Return filed prior to filing application but notice issued after date of application--Application maintainable--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 143(2), 245R-- LS Cable & System Ltd., In re . . . 18

----Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 9(1), Expln. 2, 195--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany, art. 7--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan, art. 7--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U. S. A., art. 7--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands, art. 7--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy, art. 7--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Australia, art. 7--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and France, art. 7--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and China, art. 7--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U. K., art. 7-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re . . . 134

----Residence--Indian citizen employed outside India and returning to India in financial year 2010-11 after resigning employment--Total stay of assessee in India in preceding four years more than 365 days and total stay in India for financial year 2010-11 was 119 days--Assessee resident in 2010-11 and receipts taxable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 6(1), Expln. -- Mrs. Smita Anand , In re . . . 38

 

SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Constitution of India :

Art. 226 --Assessment--Special audit--Writ--Whether accounts and related documents and records complex within meaning of section 142(2A) to be decided by Assessing Officer--Power of court limited to examining whether discretion exercised objectively and there was valid material before Assessing Officer to infer complexity--No requirement that “books of account†should be examined by Assessing Officer before directing special audit--On facts, accounts including documents, records and other material before Assessing Officer did make issues complex requiring special audit-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Australia :

Art. 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and China :

Art. 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and France :

Art. 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany :

Art. 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy :

Art. 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan :

Art. 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands :

Art. 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U. K. :

Art. 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U. S. A. :

Art. 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

Income-tax Act, 1961 :

S. 6(1), Expln. --Non-resident--Residence--Indian citizen employed outside India and returning to India in financial year 2010-11 after resigning employment--Total stay of assessee in India in preceding four years more than 365 days and total stay in India for financial year 2010-11 was 119 days--Assessee resident in 2010-11 and receipts taxable-- Mrs. Smita Anand , In re (AAR). . . 38

S. 9(1), Expln. 2 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

S. 10B --Export--Exemption--Export oriented undertaking--Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)--Power to admit additional evidence--Assessee seeking to produce documents in support of claim for exemption as export oriented unit--Remand report called for from Assessing Officer not dealing with merits of claim but only referring to adjournments sought by assessee--No dispute as regards assessee’s status as a 100 per cent. export oriented unit for earlier year--Return filed within due date and copy of green card and certificate from chartered accountant produced--Failure to go into merits of claim and dismissal of appeal on technical ground of lack of vigilant prosecution--Not proper--Appeal to High Court--Orders of Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) set aside and matter remanded-- Venture Metal Products P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 122

S. 11 --Charitable purpose--Charitable trust--Exemption--Investment in immovable property--Major portion of income of trust spent towards construction of commercial complex--Objects clause of bye-laws of trust not showing construction of commercial complex is object of trust--Commercial complex not used for any of objects of trust--Donations received considered as normal donation and not as donations towards corpus fund--Assessee not entitled to exemption-- Kamma Sangham v. Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) (AP) . . . 30

S. 37(1), Expln. --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments prohibited by law--Effect of insertion of Explanation to section 37(1) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962--Secret commission and specimen distribution to public servants--Disallowable--Matter remanded to Tribunal for deciding question of allowability of deduction in light of Explanation to section 37(1)-- CIT v. Dhanpat Rai and Sons (P&H) . . . 7

S. 40(a)(ia) --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments exceeding prescribed limit otherwise than by crossed cheques or crossed bank drafts--ONGC acquiring lands from farmers and farmers forming a society--Society receiving amounts from ONGC and distributing to farmers--Payments not expended by society and would not come within meaning of expenditure either under section 40(a)(ia) or section 40A(3)--No disallowance could be made-- CIT v. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC and Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society (Guj) . . . 92

----Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments on which tax deductible at source--ONGC formulating a scheme to acquire oil field land area from farmers by compensating them--ONGC forming a society for maintaining individual account of each farmer and co-ordinating all matters with ONGC--No element of works contract--Society receiving amount and distributing to farmers--Society not a sub-contractor--Society need not deduct tax at source on payments made to each of farmers-- ITO v. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society (Guj) . . . 87

S. 40A(3) --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments exceeding prescribed limit otherwise than by crossed cheques or crossed bank drafts--ONGC acquiring lands from farmers and farmers forming a society--Society receiving amounts from ONGC and distributing to farmers--Payments not expended by society and would not come within meaning of expenditure either under section 40(a)(ia) or section 40A(3)--No disallowance could be made-- CIT v. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC and Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society (Guj) . . . 92

----Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments on which tax deductible at source--ONGC formulating a scheme to acquire oil field land area from farmers by compensating them--ONGC forming a society for maintaining individual account of each farmer and co-ordinating all matters with ONGC--No element of works contract--Society receiving amount and distributing to farmers--Society not a sub-contractor--Society need not deduct tax at source on payments made to each of farmers-- ITO v. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society (Guj) . . . 87

S. 41(1) --Business income--Remission or cessation of liability--Unexplained purchase--Addition on ground liability for sum not carried over in following year--Fact that credit entry for sum was first entry in ledger of concerned party--Appellate authorities justified in deleting addition-- CIT v. Nandadevi Sales Agency (Cal) . . . 5

S. 92CA --Assessment--Special audit--International transactions--That reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer whose order binding on Assessing Officer--Does not make provisions for direction for special audit subject to powers of Transfer Pricing Officer-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

----International transactions--Arm’s length price--Determination--Dispute Resolution Panel directing Transfer Pricing Officer to make proportionate adjustment on total sales to associated enterprise only and no adjustment on non-associated enterprise--Tribunal deleting addition on ground unit compared by Transfer Pricing Officer not comparable to assessee--Whether there was any other comparable unit or any other unit to be considered by Transfer Pricing Officer--Matter remanded -- CIT v. Manaksia Ltd. (Cal) . . . 56

S. 142(2A) --Assessment--Special audit--Approval of Commissioner--No requirement of recording elaborate reasons for approval--Approval cannot be mechanical--Terms of reference sent by Assessing Officer, views of Assessing Officer and those of assessee available before Commissioner--Approval not without application of mind by Commissioner-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

----Assessment--Special audit--International transactions--That reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer whose order binding on Assessing Officer--Does not make provisions for direction for special audit subject to powers of Transfer Pricing Officer-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

----Assessment--Special audit--Natural justice--Assessee submitting elaborate reply to notice under section 142(1) showing cause against special audit--Requirement of adherence to rules of natural justice satisfied-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

----Assessment--Special audit--Writ--Whether accounts and related documents and records complex within meaning of section 142(2A) to be decided by Assessing Officer--Power of court limited to examining whether discretion exercised objectively and there was valid material before Assessing Officer to infer complexity--No requirement that “books of account†should be examined by Assessing Officer before directing special audit--On facts, accounts including documents, records and other material before Assessing Officer did make issues complex requiring special audit-- AT & T Communication Services India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 97

S. 143(2) --Non-resident--Advance ruling--Jurisdiction of Authority--Bar where question already pending before income-tax authority--Meaning of “question already pending†--Only after issue of notice under section 143(2) can question be said to be pending before income-tax authority--Mere filing of return not sufficient--Return filed prior to filing application but notice issued after date of application--Application maintainable-- LS Cable & System Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 18

S. 147 --Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Change of opinion--Issue regarding tax deducted at source considered in original assessment and ad hoc disallowance of payments made--Notice of reassessment to disallow payments on ground tax deduction at source had not been made--Notice not valid-- Transwind Infrastructure P. Ltd. v. ITO (Guj) . . . 67

----Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Notice after four years--Condition precedent--Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Assessee creating provision at a time when its income was exempt from tax--Write back of provision subsequently and fact disclosed in return--Amount not taxed--Notice seeking to tax amount after four years--Not valid-- National Dairy Development Board v. Deputy CIT (Guj) . . . 79

----Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Scrutiny assessment and partial disallowance of a particular amount--Notice on ground there should have been total disallowance of amount--Notice not valid-- Siddhi Vinayak Transport v. Asst. CIT (Guj) . . . 72

S. 148 --Reassessment--Notice--Assessing Officer accepting assessee’s objections on ground there was no evidence to connect assessee with properties in tax evasion petition to have been acquired by assessee out of undisclosed income--Assessing Officer admitting contents of tax evasion petition factually incorrect--Assessing Officer instead of terminating proceedings thereafter inviting assessee to cross-examine complainant--Impermissible-- Pradyot K. Misra v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 24

----Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Change of opinion--Issue regarding tax deducted at source considered in original assessment and ad hoc disallowance of payments made--Notice of reassessment to disallow payments on ground tax deduction at source had not been made--Notice not valid-- Transwind Infrastructure P. Ltd. v. ITO (Guj) . . . 67

----Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Notice after four years--Condition precedent--Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Assessee creating provision at a time when its income was exempt from tax--Write back of provision subsequently and fact disclosed in return--Amount not taxed--Notice seeking to tax amount after four years--Not valid-- National Dairy Development Board v. Deputy CIT (Guj) . . . 79

----Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Scrutiny assessment and partial disallowance of a particular amount--Notice on ground there should have been total disallowance of amount--Notice not valid-- Siddhi Vinayak Transport v. Asst. CIT (Guj) . . . 72

S. 158BE --Search and seizure--Block assessment--Undisclosed income--Assessment of third party--Limitation--Information given to Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over assessee after completion of assessment of person against whom search conducted--Not a valid satisfaction--Notice issued to assessee thirty-four months after framing of assessment of person against whom search conducted--Notice beyond reasonable time--Block assessment and additions made thereon not justified-- CIT v. Umesh Chandra Gupta (Delhi) . . . 1

S 179(1) --Recovery of tax--Private company--Liability of directors--Recovery from directors not permissible if director proves non-recovery not attributable to gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part--Company having substantial dues towards bank--Debts Recovery Tribunal directing recovery of bank’s dues by sale of properties of company--Balance due to bank supplied by directors from their personal resources--Directors agreeing to forgo their loans to company in order to have its name struck of register of companies--Facts establishing that non-recovery of tax due from company not attributable to gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on part of directors--Recovery of tax dues of company personally from directors not permissible-- Jashvantlal Natverlal Kansara v. ITO (Guj) . . . 115

S. 194C --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments on which tax deductible at source--ONGC formulating a scheme to acquire oil field land area from farmers by compensating them--ONGC forming a society for maintaining individual account of each farmer and co-ordinating all matters with ONGC--No element of works contract--Society receiving amount and distributing to farmers--Society not a sub-contractor--Society need not deduct tax at source on payments made to each of farmers-- ITO v. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society (Guj) . . . 87

S. 195 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Business connection--Definitions--Scope of--General principles--Payments received or receivable by non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and professional personnel to Indian group company--Terms and conditions governing relationship between non-resident and Indian company, global character and profile of group, interdependence amongst companies of group, nature of services rendered and exchanged and location of Indian company’s office indicating Indian company a permanent establishment of non-resident--Essential features of business connection also satisfied--Incomes received by non-resident from Indian company taxable as business profits--Payments subject to withholding of tax-- Booz and Company (Australia) P. Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 134

S. 245R --Non-resident--Advance ruling--Jurisdiction of Authority--Bar where question already pending before income-tax authority--Meaning of “question already pending†--Only after issue of notice under section 143(2) can question be said to be pending before income-tax authority--Mere filing of return not sufficient--Return filed prior to filing application but notice issued after date of application--Application maintainable-- LS Cable & System Ltd., In re (AAR). . . 18

S. 254(2) --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Rectification of mistakes--Application for rectification--Duty is limited to points raised before Tribunal--Aspects and contentions not raised by parties--Pleadings, evidence or material to which Tribunal’s pointed attention not drawn in course of proceedings--Tribunal not expected to unearth evidence or material to which its attention not drawn by parties--Tribunal justified in not rectifying mistake-- Dholadhar Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 111

S. 260A --Appeal to High Court--Capital gains--Full value of consideration--Memorandum of understanding reflecting higher sale price but agreement to sell and sale deed recording lower figure--No material to suggest excess consideration actually paid--Limited use of land allowed to purchaser--Fifty per cent. of land likely to be reserved--No evidence other than memorandum of understanding to controvert evidence--Cost of acquisition--Without further evidence, Assessing Officer could not substitute valuation of registered valuer--Concurrent factual finding of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal--No question of law-- CIT v. Hiraben Govindbhai Patel (Guj) . . . 59

S. 271(1)(c) --Penalty--Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Stay of recovery pending appeal--Marketing expenses paid to associated enterprise--Revised return withdrawing deduction--Imposition of penalty on ground revised return filed to get over determination of arm’s length price--Quantum appeal pending before High Court--Assessee paying full amount of tax and twenty-five per cent. of penalty--Tribunal ought not to have directed assessee to deposit further sum for staying outstanding demand of penalty-- Deloitte Consulting India P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Bom) . . . 46

----Penalty--Concealment of income--Wrong claim of deduction--No finding that explanation offered by assessee not bona fide--No penalty imposable-- CIT v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. (Karn) . . . 160

Income-tax Rules, 1962 :

R. 46A --Export--Exemption--Export oriented undertaking--Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)--Power to admit additional evidence--Assessee seeking to produce documents in support of claim for exemption as export oriented unit--Remand report called for from Assessing Officer not dealing with merits of claim but only referring to adjournments sought by assessee--No dispute as regards assessee’s status as a 100 per cent. export oriented unit for earlier year--Return filed within due date and copy of green card and certificate from chartered accountant produced--Failure to go into merits of claim and dismissal of appeal on technical ground of lack of vigilant prosecution--Not proper--Appeal to High Court--Orders of Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) set aside and matter remanded-- Venture Metal Products P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 122

 


CA. Chandrakant Pawar, Chartered Accountant, Nashik
Patil Daware Girase Pawar & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nashik

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Supreme Court Explains Important Law On Taxation Of Charitable + Religious Trusts

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

CIT vs. M/s Dawoodi Bohara Jamat (Supreme Court)

A charitable and religious trust which does not benefit any specific religious community is not hit by s. 13(1)(b) & is eligible to claim exemption u/s 11

The assessee filed an application for registration before the CIT for registration u/s 12A/ 12AA to avail exemption u/s 11. The CIT held that though the assessee was a charitable trust, since its object and purpose was confined only to a particular religious community (Dawoodi Bohra), the bar in s. 13(1)(b) was attracted. On appeal, the Tribunal held that as the objects of the trust are wholly religious in nature, the provisions of s. 13(1)(b) which are otherwise applicable to charitable trusts was not applicable. The assessee was held entitled to claim registration u/s 12A & 12AA. On appeal by the department, the High Court declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that the Tribunal had given a finding of fact that the assessee was a religious trust. On further appeal by the department the Supreme Court had to consider (i) whether the issue as to whether the assessee was a charitable/ religious trust was a finding of fact & (ii) whether the assessee was hit by the bar in s. 13(1)(b). HELD by the Supreme Court:

(i) Normally a finding of fact as decided by the last fact finding authority is final and ought not to be lightly interfered by the High Court in an appeal. The exceptions to the said rule have been well delineated by this Court and for the present case do not require to be noticed. The appellate Courts however ought to be cautious while weeding out such questions and should the question in examination involve examination of finding of fact, ex cautela abundanti the appellate Courts would require to examine that whether the question involves merely the finding of fact or the legal effect of such proven facts or documents in appeal. While the former would be a question of fact which may or may not be interfered with, the latter is necessarily the question of law which would require consideration. It is often that the questions of law and fact are intricately entwined, sometimes to the extent of blurring the domains in which they ought to be considered and therefore, require cautious consideration. The question where the legal effect of proven facts is intrinsically in appeal has to be differentiated from the question where a finding of fact is only assailed;

(ii) The legal effect of proved facts and documents is a question of law. The determination of nature of trust as wholly religious or wholly charitable or both charitable and religious under the Act is not a question of fact. It is but a question which requires examination of legal effects of the proven facts and documents, that is, the legal implication of the objects of the trust as contained in the trust deed. It is only the objects of a trust as declared in the trust deed which would govern its right of exemption u/s 11 or 12. It is the analysis of these objects in the backdrop of fiscal jurisprudence which would illuminate the purpose behind creation or establishment of the trust for either religious or charitable or both religious and charitable purpose. Therefore, the High Court has erred in refusing to interfere with the observations of the Tribunal in respect of the character of the trust;

(iii) In certain cases, the activities of a trust may contain elements of both: religious and charitable and thus, both the purposes may be over lapping. More so when the religious activity carried on by a particular section of people would be a charitable activity for or towards other members of the community and also public at large;

(iv) On facts, the objects of the assessee are not indicative of a wholly religious purpose but are collectively indicative of both charitable and religious purposes. The fact that the said objects trace their source to the Holy Quran and resolve to abide by the path of godliness shown by Allah would not be sufficient to conclude that the entire purpose and activities of the trust would be purely religious in color. The objects reflect the intent of the trust as observance of the tenets of Islam, but do not restrict the activities of the trust to religious obligations only and for the benefit of the members of the community. In judging whether a certain purpose is of public benefit or not, the Courts must in general apply the standards of customary law and common opinion amongst the community to which the parties interested belong to. Customary law does not restrict the charitable disposition of the intended activities in the objects. Neither the religious tenets nor the objects as expressed limit the service of food on religious occasions only to the members of the specific community. The activity of Nyaz performed by the assessee does not delineate a separate class but extends the benefit of free service of food to public at large irrespective of their religion, caste or sect and thereby qualifies as a charitable purpose which would entail general public utility. Even the establishment of Madarsa or institutions to impart religious education to the masses would qualify as a charitable purpose qualifying under the head of education u/s 2(15). The institutions established to spread religious awareness by means of education though established to promote and further religious thought could not be restricted to religious purposes. The assessee is consequently a public charitable and religious trust eligible for claiming exemption u/s 11;

(v) The interpretation of the Tribunal & High Court that s. 13(1)(b) would only be applicable in case of income of a trust for charitable (& not religious) purpose established for benefit of a particular religious community is not correct. S. 13(1)(b) applies also to composite trusts set up for both religious and charitable purposes if it is established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste.

(vi) On facts, though the objects of the assessee-trust are based on religious tenets under Quran according to religious faith of Islam, the perusal of the objects and purposes of the assessee would clearly demonstrate that the activities of the trust are both charitable and religious and are not exclusively meant for a particular religious community. The objects do not channel the benefits to any community if not the Dawoodi Bohra Community and thus, would not fall under the provisions of s. 13(1)(b).


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Bharti Airtel Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Transfer Pricing: A transaction (such as a corporate guarantee) which has no bearing on profits, incomes, losses or assets of the enterprise is not an ‘international transaction’ u/s 92B(1) and not subject to transfer pricing


CA. Chandrakant Pawar, Chartered Accountant, Nashik
Patil Daware Girase Pawar & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nashik

Section 56(2)(vii): ITAT Explains Entire Law On Tax Implications Of Shares Issue + CBDT Circular On S. 10A/10B

 

Dear Subscriber,

CBDT Circular On S. 10A/ 10B Exemption To Export Of Computer Software

The clarificatory Circular No. 01/2013 dated 17.01.2013 issued by CBDT to address various contentious issues leading to tax disputes in cases of entities engaged in export of computer software which are availing tax-benefits under sections 10A, 10AA and 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be brought to the notice of all Departmental Representatives (DRs) and Standing Counsels of the Department who plead such matters before the ITATs and the Courts, respectively so that such appellate authorities/courts are duly appraised of the clarifications issued by CBDT on various contentious issues pending before them


Sudhir Menon HUF vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 56(2)(vii) does not apply to bonus & rights shares offered on a proportionate basis even if the offer price is less than the FMV of the shares

The assessee held 15,000 shares in Dorf Ketal Chemicals Pvt. Ltd representing 4.98% of the share capital. Pursuant to a further issue, it was allotted 1,94,000 shares at the face value rate of Rs.100 each, on a proportionate basis. The AO held that as the book value of the shares was Rs.1,538 per share, computed under Rules 11U & 11UA), the difference of Rs.1,438 per share (aggregating Rs. 27.89 crore) was “inadequate consideration” and assessable to tax u/s 56(2)(vii)(c). This was upheld by the CIT(A). On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD allowing the appeal:

S. 56(2)(vii)(c) (ii) provides that where an individual or a HUF receives any property for a consideration which is less than the FMV of the property, the difference shall be assessed as income of the recipient. S. 56(2)(vii) does not apply to the issue of bonus shares because there is a mere capitalization of profit by the issuing-company and there is neither any increase nor decrease in the wealth of the shareholder as his percentage holding remains constant. The same argument applies pari materia to the issue of additional shares to the extent it is proportional to the existing share-holding because to the extent the value of the property in the additional shares is derived from that of the existing shareholding, on the basis of which the same are allotted, no additional property can be said to have been received by the shareholder. The fall in the value of the existing holding has to be taken into account. As long as there is no disproportionate allotment, i.e., shares are allotted pro-rata to the shareholders, based on their existing holdings, there is no scope for any property being received by them on the said allotment of shares; there being only an apportionment of the value of their existing holding over a larger number of shares. There is, accordingly, no question of s. 56(2)(vii)(c) getting attracted in such a case. A higher than proportionate or a non-uniform allotment though would attract the rigor of the provision to the extent of the disproportionate allotment and by suitably factoring in the decline in the value of the existing holding


For more on s. 56(2)(vii) see Article 1 and Article 2

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

CBDT Extends Due Date For Paying Advance-tax To 18.03.2014


CA. Chandrakant Pawar, Chartered Accountant, Nashik
Patil Daware Girase Pawar & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nashik

Three Important High Court Judgements On Stay Of Demand, Reopening And Special Audit

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.

Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 220: After rejecting stay application AO must give reasonable time before taking steps for coercive recovery

Having said that this is a case in which technically no fault could be found with the assessing officer, we feel that there was there was an element of impropriety in his action in issuing the garnishee order under section 226(3) on 17.2.2014, the very day on which he rejected the stay application filed by the petitioner under section 220(3). It is expected of him, having rejected the stay application, to wait for a reasonable period before he takes coercive steps to recover the amounts since the petitioner, faced with an order rejecting the stay application, may need some time to make arrangements to pay the entire tax demand or come up with proposals for paying the same in instalments. That opportunity was not afforded by the assessing officer in the present cases. The assessing officer is a prospector of the revenue and he is no doubt expected to protect the interests of the revenue zealously, but such zeal has to be tempered with the rules of fair play and an anxiety to ensure that a opportunity is not lost to the assessee to make alternative arrangements for clearing the tax dues, once the stay applications filed under section 220(3) are rejected. Taking away the amount of Rs.43.87 crores from the bank account of the petitioner may perhaps not be legally faulted, but taking into account the haste with which the assessing officer acted in the present case it seems to us that there was an element of arbitrariness in the action of the assessing officer. In our opinion, since the stay applications filed by the petitioners are pending before the Tribunal, the more appropriate course would be to issue the following directions


Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 147: Court can examine existence but not adequacy of reasons. AO is only required to provide material on which he relies to reopen the assessment

(ii) The law only requires that the information or material on which the AO records his or her satisfaction is communicated to the asseseee, without mandating the disclosure of any specific document. While the 2G Spectrum Report has not been supplied in this case on grounds of confidentiality, the reasons recorded have been communicated and do provide – independent of the 2G Report – details of the new and tangible information that support the AO’s opinion. These facts are capable of justifying the satisfaction recorded on their own terms, as discussed above. In this context, there is no legal proposition that mandates the disclosure of any additional document. This is not the say that the AO may in all cases refuse to disclose documents relied upon by him on account of confidentiality, but rather, that fact must be judged on the basis of whether other tangible and specific information is available so as to justify the conclusion irrespective of the contents of the document sought to be kept confidential.


AT&T Communication Services India (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 142(2A): AO need not examine books of account before directing special audit. Q whether accounts are “complex” has to decided by AO & Court can interfere sparingly

(ii) The question whether the accounts and the related documents and records available with the A.O. present complexity is essentially to be decided by the A.O. and in this area the power of the court to intrude should necessarily be used sparingly. It is the A.O. who has to complete the assessment. It is he who has to understand and appreciate the accounts. If he finds that the accounts are complex, the court normally will not interfere under Article 226. The power of the court to control the discretion of the A.O. in this field is limited only to examine whether his discretion to refer the accounts for special audit was exercised objectively


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

CBDT Circular On S. 10A/ 10B Exemption To Export Of Computer Software


CA. Chandrakant Pawar, Chartered Accountant, Nashik
Patil Daware Girase Pawar & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nashik

ITAT Hauls Up AO And DRP For Frivolous Addition Of Rs. 5,700 Crore


 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

Bharti Airtel Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT hauls up AO & DRP for “blatantly frivolous & unsustainable” additions. Suggests that accountability mechanism be set up to put a check on AO. Rationale for existence of ineffective DRP questioned

Pursuant to a scheme of arrangement the assessee transferred its telecom infrastructure assets to Bharti Infratel Ltd for Nil consideration with the result that the WDV of the said assets amounting to Rs. 5,739 crore was written off by debiting the P&L A/c. A corresponding amount was credited to the P&L A/c from the ‘business restructuring reserve’ with the result that there was no net debit to the P&L A/c. The AO & DRP noted that there was no effect on the P&L A/c but still held that an addition of Rs 5,739 crore had to be made to the assessee’s income. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD by the Tribunal allowing the appeal:

… if an action of the AO is so blatantly unreasonable that such seasoned senior officers well versed with functioning of judicial forums, as the learned DRs are, cannot even go through the convincing motions of defending the same before us, such unreasonable conduct of the AO deserves to be scrutinized seriously. At a time when evolving societal pressures demand greater degree of accountability in the governance also, it does no good to the judicial institutions to watch such situations as helpless spectators. If it is indeed a case of frivolous addition, someone should be accountable for the resultant undue hardship to the taxpayer -rather than being allowed to walk away with a subtle, though easily discernable, admission to the effect that yes it was a frivolous addition, and, if it is not a frivolous addition, there has to be reasonable defence, before us, for such an addition.

… Whichever way one looks at these entries, the inescapable conclusion is that the addition made by the AO is wholly erroneous and devoid of any legally sustainable merits.

…. The fact that even such purely factual issues are not adequately dealt with by the DRPs raises a big question mark on the efficacy of the very institution of Dispute Resolution Panel. One can perhaps understand, even if not condone, such frivolous additions being made by the AOs, who are relatively younger officers with limited exposure and experience, but the Dispute Resolution Panels, manned by very distinguished and senior Commissioners of eminence, will lose all their relevance, if, irrespective of their heavy work load and demanding schedules, these forums do not rise to the occasion and do not deal with the objections raised before them in a comprehensive and effective manner.

… While we delete the impugned addition of Rs 5739,60,05,089, we also place on record our dissatisfaction with the way and manner in which this issue has been handled at the assessment stage. Let us not forget that the majesty of law is as much damaged by not rendering justice to the conduct which cannot be faulted as much it is damaged by a wrongdoer going unpunished; not giving relief in deserving cases is as much of a disservice to the cause of justice and the cause of nation as much a disservice it is , to these causes, by granting undue reliefs. The time has come that a strong institutional check is put in place for dealing with such eventualities and de-incentivizing this kind of a conduct.

On the need for accountability see Dr. Raja Chelliah’s Report 197 ITR 177(St) 257 para 5.9. See also An Award Scheme For What? Harassing Taxpayers? & Collect Taxes; Get Promotion & Choice Posting: CBDT Chief

(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 220: After rejecting stay application AO must give reasonable time before taking steps for coercive recovery


CA. Chandrakant Pawar, Chartered Accountant, Nashik
Patil Daware Girase Pawar & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nashik

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

ITR (TRIB) Volume 30 : Part 4 (Issue dated : 17-3-2014)

 

ITR’S TRIBUNAL TAX REPORTS (ITR (TRIB)) -- PRINT AND ONLINE EDITION

 

ONLINE EDITION

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED

Charitable purpose --Registration of trust--Object of trust--Evaluation of benefits of reservation and undertaking research and survey for abolition of reservation policy--Cannot be construed as direct confrontation with Government--Conducting coaching classes on co-operative basis and without profit motive--Assessee entitled to registration under section 12A--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 12A-- Paras Prerna Trust v. Director of Income-tax (Exemption) (Mumbai) . . . 239

Exemption --Capital gains--Transfer of shares in private company from assessee to holding company--Shares in private company not tradable in open market and cannot treated as stock-in-trade--Solitary transaction of shares to holding company--Borrowing from holding company for purchase of shares capital rather than commercial--Gains on sale of shares to be treated as capital gains--Assessee entitled to exemption with respect to long-term capital gains--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 2(47)(v)-- Renato Finance and Investments Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mumbai) . . . 232

Interest on borrowed capital --Investment in equity shares of group concern--Nexus between investment and availability of funds for investment not available--Details regarding purchase of share not available--Commercial expediency cannot be blindly applied--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Asst. CIT v. Lakson Footwear P. Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 246

International transactions --Computation of arm’s length price--Selection of comparables--No opportunity given to assessee to rebut--Violation of principles of natural justice--Substantial manufacturing product of assessee different from that of comparable--Identical product representing only small percentage of total turnover of comparable company--Raw materials different--Huge difference in interest burden--Company not to be treated as comparable--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Manaksia Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Kolkata) . . . 220

 

PRINT EDITION

Volume 30 : Part 4 (Issue dated : 17-3-2014)

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED

Business expenditure --Disallowance--Expenditure by way of cash expenses--Expenditure not verifiable--Disallowance restricted to 5 per cent.--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Highlight Pictures (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 475

----Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Deduction made under wrong provision--Not a case of non-deduction of tax or non-deduction of tax so as to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 40(a)(ia)-- Highlight Pictures (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 475

----Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Foreign subsidiaries not working exclusively for assessee and obtaining orders on their own from other foreign parties and sub-contracting work to assessee depending on exigencies--No operations undertaken by foreign subsidiaries in India--No permanent establishments in India--No income of foreign subsidiary taxable in India--Change of law--Disallowance based on application of retrospective amendment which assessee could not have foreseen--Not permissible--Fees for technical services--“Make available†clause--No technical knowledge made available by non-resident to assessee--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 9(1)(i), (vi)-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

----Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Royalty--Payment to Netherlands company towards purchase of software--Software bundled with assessee’s own software and customised and sold to customers--No operations of foreign company in India to which income attributable--Licence in respect of software not obtained by assessee--Payment not royalty--No requirement of withholding tax on payment--No question of disallowance--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands, art. 12--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 9(1)(i), (vi), 40(a)(i)-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

Depreciation --Assessee providing assistance in making of advertising films--Purchase of paintings for utilisation in advertising films--Paintings part of furniture--Depreciation allowable under head furniture and fixtures--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Highlight Pictures (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 475

----Goodwill--Depreciation allowable on goodwill-- Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 465

Export --Exemption--Communication expenses--Any expenditure reduced from export turnover to be excluded from total turnover--Communication expenses to be excluded--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 10A-- Intoto Software India P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 504

----Exemption--Computation--Export turnover--Softlink charges booked under communication expenses not to be reduced from export turnover--Gains from foreign exchange fluctuation accrued on conversion of Euro EEFC account balance belonging to merged company into Indian rupees--Not to be reduced from “profit of business†or “total turnover†--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 10A-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

Income --Expenditure relating to exempt income--Dividend--Disallowance based on percentage of remuneration paid to chief financial advisor not related to investment of assessee--Disallowance to be restricted--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 14A-- Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 465

International transactions --Arm’s length price--Determination--Catering services--Catering services provided to associated enterprise, an airline company--Adjustments proposed by Transfer Pricing Officer on basis of price per item of food--Meal provided as a basket and transaction to be considered as whole--Price charged to associated enterprise the highest--No adjustment called for--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 92CA(3)-- Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 465

----Arm’s length price--Determination--Interest on loans advanced to foreign subsidiaries--Reasonable rate--LIBOR plus 2 per cent.--Loan period less than one year--Differential interest to be levied for relevant period instead of for entire period of one year-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

----Arm’s length price--Determination--Profit level indicator--Computation--Failure of Dispute Resolution Panel to consider contention of assessee--No proper adjudication on objections and failure to assign reasons--Issue to be adjudicated afresh--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Advance Power Display Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 481

----Arm’s length price--Determination--Transactional net margin method--Selection of comparables--Software development and maintenance services--Captive service provider to group companies--Comparables to be excluded under events like merger or demerger--Functions of services not similar--Comparable to be excluded--Segmental profits of particular service not available--Comparable to be excluded--Matter remanded to Transfer Pricing Officer to verify and decide issue in accordance with law--Claim for risk adjustment--Matter remanded to Transfer Pricing Officer to verify and grant risk adjustment after analysing risk to assessee comparing to other companies--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 10A-- CNO IT Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 525

----Arm’s length price--Determination--Transactional net margin method--Selection of comparables--Software development services--High operating margin reflected due to extraordinary event in comparable company--Comparable to be excluded--Small company cannot be compared to giant company engaged in development of niche products--Functions of services not similar--Cannot be compared--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Intoto Software India P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 504

----Definition--Retrospective amendment--Guarantees offered by assessee to bankers of foreign subsidiaries--International transactions--Matter remanded for determining quantum of corporate guarantee rates--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 92B, Expln. (i)(c) -- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

Penalty --Furnishing of inaccurate particulars--Bona fide claim of assessee not accepted and different view taken by Assessing Officer--Debatable issue--No reason to doubt explanation for not considering receipts as taxable under section 9(1)(vii)--No intention to evade tax--Penalty cannot be imposed--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 9(1)(vii), 115A, 271(1)(c)-- Asst. CIT v. Technip Italy SPA (Delhi) . . . 494

----Furnishing of inaccurate particulars--Information furnished not found to be false--Disallowance of deduction in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant levy of penalty--Penalty to be deleted--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- Sun Infraa v. Deputy CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 451

----Furnishing of inaccurate particulars--No finding of false claim by assessee--Estimation of income based on disclosure by assessee--Penalty cannot be made on estimation of income--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- Asst. CIT v. Technip Italy SPA (Delhi) . . . 494

SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands :

Art. 12 --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Royalty--Payment to Netherlands company towards purchase of software--Software bundled with assessee’s own software and customised and sold to customers--No operations of foreign company in India to which income attributable--Licence in respect of software not obtained by assessee--Payment not royalty--No requirement of withholding tax on payment--No question of disallowance-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

Income-tax Act, 1961 :

S. 9(1)(i), (vi) --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Foreign subsidiaries not working exclusively for assessee and obtaining orders on their own from other foreign parties and sub-contracting work to assessee depending on exigencies--No operations undertaken by foreign subsidiaries in India--No permanent establishments in India--No income of foreign subsidiary taxable in India--Change of law--Disallowance based on application of retrospective amendment which assessee could not have foreseen--Not permissible--Fees for technical services--“Make available†clause--No technical knowledge made available by non-resident to assessee-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

----Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Royalty--Payment to Netherlands company towards purchase of software--Software bundled with assessee’s own software and customised and sold to customers--No operations of foreign company in India to which income attributable--Licence in respect of software not obtained by assessee--Payment not royalty--No requirement of withholding tax on payment--No question of disallowance-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

S. 9(1)(vii) --Penalty--Furnishing of inaccurate particulars--Bona fide claim of assessee not accepted and different view taken by Assessing Officer--Debatable issue--No reason to doubt explanation for not considering receipts as taxable under section 9(1)(vii)--No intention to evade tax--Penalty cannot be imposed-- Asst. CIT v. Technip Italy SPA (Delhi) . . . 494

S. 10A --Export--Exemption--Communication expenses--Any expenditure reduced from export turnover to be excluded from total turnover--Communication expenses to be excluded-- Intoto Software India P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 504

----Export--Exemption--Computation--Export turnover--Softlink charges booked under communication expenses not to be reduced from export turnover--Gains from foreign exchange fluctuation accrued on conversion of Euro EEFC account balance belonging to merged company into Indian rupees--Not to be reduced from “profit of business†or “total turnover†-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

----International transactions--Arm’s length price--Determination--Transactional net margin method--Selection of comparables--Software development and maintenance services--Captive service provider to group companies--Comparables to be excluded under events like merger or demerger--Functions of services not similar--Comparable to be excluded--Segmental profits of particular service not available--Comparable to be excluded--Matter remanded to Transfer Pricing Officer to verify and decide issue in accordance with law--Claim for risk adjustment--Matter remanded to Transfer Pricing Officer to verify and grant risk adjustment after analysing risk to assessee comparing to other companies-- CNO IT Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 525

S. 14A --Income--Expenditure relating to exempt income--Dividend--Disallowance based on percentage of remuneration paid to chief financial advisor not related to investment of assessee--Disallowance to be restricted-- Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 465

S. 40(a)(i) --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Royalty--Payment to Netherlands company towards purchase of software--Software bundled with assessee’s own software and customised and sold to customers--No operations of foreign company in India to which income attributable--Licence in respect of software not obtained by assessee--Payment not royalty--No requirement of withholding tax on payment--No question of disallowance-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

S. 40(a)(ia) --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Deduction made under wrong provision--Not a case of non-deduction of tax or non-deduction of tax so as to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)-- Highlight Pictures (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 475

S. 92B, Expln. (i)(c) --International transactions--Definition--Retrospective amend-ment--Guarantees offered by assessee to bankers of foreign subsidiaries--International transactions--Matter remanded for determining quantum of corporate guarantee rates-- Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 542

S. 92CA(3) --International transactions--Arm’s length price--Determination--Catering services--Catering services provided to associated enterprise, an airline company--Adjustments proposed by Transfer Pricing Officer on basis of price per item of food--Meal provided as a basket and transaction to be considered as whole--Price charged to associated enterprise the highest--No adjustment called for-- Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Mumbai) . . . 465

S. 115A --Penalty--Furnishing of inaccurate particulars--Bona fide claim of assessee not accepted and different view taken by Assessing Officer--Debatable issue--No reason to doubt explanation for not considering receipts as taxable under section 9(1)(vii)--No intention to evade tax--Penalty cannot be imposed-- Asst. CIT v. Technip Italy SPA (Delhi) . . . 494

S. 271(1)(c) --Penalty--Furnishing of inaccurate particulars--Bona fide claim of assessee not accepted and different view taken by Assessing Officer--Debatable issue--No reason to doubt explanation for not considering receipts as taxable under section 9(1)(vii)--No intention to evade tax--Penalty cannot be imposed-- Asst. CIT v. Technip Italy SPA (Delhi) . . . 494

----Penalty--Furnishing of inaccurate particulars--Information furnished not found to be false--Disallowance of deduction in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant levy of penalty--Penalty to be deleted-- Sun Infraa v. Deputy CIT (Hyderabad) . . . 451

----Penalty--Furnishing of inaccurate particulars--No finding of false claim by assessee--Estimation of income based on disclosure by assessee--Penalty cannot be made on estimation of income-- Asst. CIT v. Technip Italy SPA (Delhi) . . . 494

 

__._,_.__