|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 401 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 700 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee filed a rectification application before the CIT(A), who passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2011 wherein the CIT(A) allowed the prayer made by the assessee in the rectification petition, that deductions aggregating to ₹ 49.98 lacs u/s. 54EC and 54 have to be allowed. 4. Since the rectification allowed was as per the facts of the case and the facts had been taken into consideration by the coordinate Bench and sustained the directions of the CIT(A). In our considered opinion, there is no merit in the appeal, as filed by the department because there is no further modification in the direction. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced on in the open court on 20th of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 691 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... asked to point out defect in the order of the Tribunal to which no reply was given by him. 4. The learned A.R. for the assessee pointed out that the review in the garb of Miscellaneous Application is not allowed under the provisions of the Act. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. From the concluding paras as narrated above, it is apparent that the applicant- Revenue wants recall of the order of the Tribunal for review on the basis of certain facts. Under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, the rectification of any mistake apparent from record which may have occurred in the order passed by the Tribunal is permissible. The review of the order of the Tribunal is not permissible under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. In view thereof, we find no merit in the Miscellaneous Application moved by the applicant-Revenue and the same is dismissed. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicant- Revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 683 - ITAT CHENNAI
Income from sale of shares - ‘capital gains’ OR ‘business’ - Held that:- Going through the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we find no good reason to interfere with the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that the assessee is only an investor and the intention of the assessee is only to invest in shares and there is no motive of trading in business activities in shares. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also held that all the transactions are delivery based transactions and no borrowed funds were utilized for making such investments . The assessee has been dealing in investments in shares in earlier years and reported as income from sale of shares either under the head short term capital gains or long term capital gains and this position was not disturbed by the Department. The Revenue could not file any material evidence to rebut the above findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (2) TMI 665 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained share application money - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- In the present case, the assessee furnished satisfactory explanation that money has been contributed by various persons, viz., Sri P. Muddukrishna Reddy, Sri C. Hanumantha Reddy, etc., and filed respective confirmation letters in the case of M/s. AMR Hospitality Services Ltd. The Assessing Officer also recorded statement from Sri Muddukrishna Reddy and Sri C. Hanumantha Reddy. The same has been routed through banking channels. Similarly in the case of Sangam Sugar Ventures Ltd., Smt. B. Sugunamma, Sri C. Hanumantha Reddy and Sri Damodar Reddy have filed their confirmation letters. Sworn statement was also recorded from Sri C. Hanumantha Reddy. They are Income-tax assessees. In spite of this, the Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of the transactions. The contention of the Assessing Officer is that these persons are name lenders and were used as a ploy by the director of the assessee-company to route the unaccounted money of the flagship company to the director by bringing the money in their names. It is also recorded by the Assessing Officer that these name lenders having filed their returns of income only to explain the investment so as to facilitate the conversion of unaccounted money into the assessee's company. It was also alleged that the money was routed like this as a device to explain the investments. However, the fact is that these persons who have made investments in the assessee-company are Income-tax assessees and have given the confirmation letters. Had the Assessing Officer has any doubt, it should be questioned in the hands of the investors.
A similar issue was considered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Lanco Industries Ltd. [1999 (12) TMI 45 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court]. While rejecting the Revenue's appeal, the High Court observed that merely by reason of unsatisfactory explanation relating to the source of investment by the shareholders, the money invested in shares cannot be treated as income of the assessee. If the ostensible shareholders failed to explain the means of investment, that should have been treated as unexplained income in their hands. In order to add it to the income of the assessee there must be a further finding that in fact the shareholders were name lenders and the money allegedly invested by them really belongs to the directors of the assessee-company. In the present case, the Department having accepted the returns of income filed by the ostensible shareholders, it cannot go back while making the assessment of the assessee to hold that those shareholders are money lenders and investments were unexplained. Had the Department disregarded the returns filed by the alleged shareholders alleging that the money moved out of the assessee's hands to the hands of the alleged shareholders only then it can be treated as the money belonging to the assessee. Without bringing on record a finding to show that the money has moved from the assessee's hands to the alleged shareholders hands and having accepted the alleged shareholders, it is not possible to us to sustain the addition in the hands of the assessee. Further, on the basis of evidence available on record, it is not possible to hold that the transactions are stage managed and the share application money was received from bogus shareholders without bringing on record the money has moved from the assessee's hands to the shareholders.
As held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports P. Ltd. [2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that if the share application money is received by the assessee-company from the alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as unexplained income of the assessee-company. In the present case considering the facts of the case, as the Department failed to show that the share application money actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee-company, addition was rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is confirmed. - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (2) TMI 664 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- Provisions of Rule 8D, are not applicable in assessment year 2007-08 in view of the judgment of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT, (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT); and secondly, the disallowance @ 10% of the dividend income can be said to be a reasonable basis on the facts fo the case. Therefore, we do not find any reason to deviate from such a finding given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). There is no merit in the ground raised by the Revenue which is mainly on the ground that the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) has not been accepted by the Department and Special Leave Petition is pending before the Apex Court. Thus, such a ground raised by the Revenue cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is dismissed. - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (2) TMI 630 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Housing project - HC uphold the order of ITAT in which ITAT directed the A.O. to look into the agreement entered into by the assessee with land owner and decide whether the assessee has in fact purchased the land for a fixed consideration from the land owner and assessee had developed the housing project at its own cost and risk involved in the project, in respect of the issue regarding deductions u/s. 80IB(10) r.w.s. 80IB(1) as claimed by the assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 629 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Revenue or capital expenditure - amount spent for acquisition of membership of the clubs - held that:- the concurrent finding arrived at by the appellate authority and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the expenditure incurred for acquisition of membership of the club is revenue expenditure, is justified and cannot at all said to be perverse or arbitrary so as to call for interference in this appeal. - Decision of Apex Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd.'s case [1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and decision of HC in CIT v. Wipro Systems [2009 (11) TMI 402 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] followed. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Expenditure on ISO-9001 certificate - held that:- the certificate would only certify that the procedure followed by the assessee in the manufacture and the quality maintained during manufacture is in accordance with the standard prescribed. - held as revenue in nature - Decision in CIT v. Perot Systems TSI (India) Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 108 - DELHI HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 628 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment - reopening after 4 years - notice u/s 148 - held that:- If the Legislature amends the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 627 - SC ORDER
Deduction u/s 37(1) - welfare expenses towards providing education to its employees' children & Payments to other educational institutions where the children of its employees were studying - held that:- matter remanded back in view of earlier decision in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax [2012 (9) TMI 765 - SUPREME COURT].
There is a difference between reim-bursement and contribution. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the amount has been reimbursed, the quantified amount shall be certified by the chartered accountant of the assessee to enable the assessee to make a claim.
-
2013 (2) TMI 626 - SC ORDER
Interest on monies borrowed for setting up sugar plant – assessee set up Ferro Alloys Plant in 1991 & sugar plant in 1995 - HC has [2008 (11) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT DELHI] uphold the decision of Tribunal that there is a unity of control and management, in respect of both plants and there is also intermingling of funds and dove-tailing of businesses - hence it cannot be said that the assessee had not commenced its business and hence, interest would have to be capitalized - financial charges i.e., interest is allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) - Appeal against the Decision of HC dismissed by the apex court in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. - In favor of assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 625 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 68 - cash credit - capacity and credit worthiness - held that:- in view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in ommissioner of Income Tax v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., [2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], as also by the Division Bench in Jaya Securities Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007 (5) TMI 552 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD] decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 623 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80-IB(11) - cold chain facilities - Integrated business of cold storage and cold transportation - held that:- it is not necessary that there should be facility of transportation along with the facility of cold storage to constitute a cold chain facility. The business of cold storage alone, without any transportation facility with refrigeration back to back upto consumption and, linking farmer and market also qualifies for deduction in terms of provisions of Section 80-1B (11) of the Act. The word "or" in the context here means and should be interpreted as disjunctive particle. The statute should be read in its ordinary, natural, and grammatical sense. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 622 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80-IB(11) - cold chain facility - AO denied the benefit by stating that merely providing refrigerated storage facilities for potatoes cannot be regarded as an undertaking having 'cold chain facilities' within the meaning of Section 80-IB of the Act - held that:- Bare perusal of the aforesaid definition it is clear that "cold chain facility" means a chain of facilities for storage of agricultural produce under scientifically controlled conditions including refrigeration and other facilities necessary for the preservation of such produce. The words storage and transportation have been separated by using word 'or' as such both the facilities of storage and transportation at the same time was not necessary for falling within the definition of "cold chain facility"
Business of the assessee is covered within the definition of "cold chain facility" under Section 80-IB (14) (aa) of the Act and the assessee was entitled for exemption under Section 80-IB of the Act.
-
2013 (2) TMI 621 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income escaping assessment - notice u/s 147/148 - non mentioning of AY in the notice - assessee participated in the reassessment proceeding. - appeal was allowed in part by the CIT(A) against the order u/s 147 - validity of assessment u/s 292B and 292BB - held that:- No party can claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of some slip of pen, or omission causing no prejudice to anyone. The section is intended to ensure that an inconsequential technicality does not defeat justice. Nature of mistake will determine whether a return, order or proceeding is vitiated or not.
The only defect which could be pointed out is that the assessment year was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Unless it is shown that assessee was misled by not mentioning the assessment year in the reasons recorded, we are of the view that if the reasons recorded relate to a particular year, the reassessment proceeding initiated relate to that particular year and the assessee participated in the reassessment proceeding without raising any objection, such an objection cannot be raised by the assessee at a subsequent stage of the proceeding.
Order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained - Decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2013 (2) TMI 608 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Period of limitation for rectification u/s 154(7) - stay of the demand raised by the petitioner - Held that:- The entire demand of Rs.92,54,79,604/- in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 is time barred because the notice itself under section 154 was issued after four years from the end of the financial year in which the assessment had been originally framed.
In the year 2005-06 the demand had been initially quantified at Rs.225.86 crores which has been reduced by a sum of Rs.30 crores because the petitioners have paid the said sum in March 2012. The balance is, therefore, Rs.195,86,36,433/-. The original demand of Rs.225.86 crores comprised of two components i.e. Rs.114 crores towards the alleged principal tax liability and Rs.110 crores towards the purported interest liability.
Rs.110 crores interest liability can be broken up into three components first being an amount of Rs.75 crores raised as per the demand notice under section 156 dated 16.03.2012 for a period prior to the date of notice, thus this demand is ex facie bad inasmuch as section 220(2) contemplates charging of interest for nonpayment of a demand raised under section 156 and that, too, after 30 days thereof. In the present case the demand itself was raised on 16.03.2012 therefore there cannot be any interest charged for a period prior to it.
Interest demanded of Rs.15 crores u/s 234B - As decided in Abdul Wahid and Company case [2010 (6) TMI 85 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] when the liability for payment of additional tax itself was created for the first time, based on the subsequent amendment, in the year 2005, with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998, it would be incongruent to expect the assessee to have satisfied the requirement of payment of advance tax as prescribed under Section 234 (B) of the Income Tax Act – interest u/s 234B can not be imposed
Sum of Rs.30 crores has been demanded on the basis of disallowance of the annual licence fee amount on the issue of whether the same was capital or revenue in nature. The Tribunal, in the case of the assessee itself decided in favour of the assessee.
The petitioner sought to set off this sum of Rs.54 crores against a payment of Rs.87 crores for the assessment year 2008-09 which cannot be accepted inasmuch as focus is on the two assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and this was not the issue when the impugned order dated 03.01.2013 was passed. Consequently, there is an outstanding alleged demand of Rs.54 crores on account of tax and Rs.20 crores on account of interest which is, prima facie, recoverale from the petitioner - a demand of Rs.74 crores would possibly be sustainable at the present stage the petitioner should deposit 75% of this figure of Rs.74 crores which would roughly come to Rs.55.5 crores round off to Rs.56 crores.
-
2013 (2) TMI 607 - ITAT BANGALORE
Reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer - determination of the ALP by rejecting the TP study made by the assessee - as per TPO assessee is to be considered as Service Provider, working on Research and Development and not as Software Development as claimed by the assessee - Held that:- Assessee is a service provider for research and development in various fields of engineering (including computer software) as enumerated in the agreements between the assessee and its associated enterprises and the result of such research and development is being delivered to the clients/associated enterprise in the form of customized computer data through network/internet. Thus, even as per the assessee's submissions, it is conducting the research and development through its multi-disciplinary R&D centre JFWTC and its activities are for several streams/areas including Information Technology.
Thus it can be seen that it is catering to nearly all of GE's diverse business worldwide touching nearly every scientific discipline across the spectrum therefore rightly held by the TPO that the assessee is not into simple software development but is engaged in research and development in technical and engineering services on contract basis. Therefore, the TPO has rightly rejected the TP study conducted by the assessee and has rightly proceeded to select his own comparables in the field of Research and Development and redetermine the ALP - against assessee.
Whether the comparables adopted by the TPO are relevant and comparable to the assessee - Held that:- As rightly pointed out by the TPO and the CIT(A)/DRP for the relevant assessment years, the assessee is not in the business of software development but it is in the business of research and development in various fields of engineering including the computer software. The outcome of the research and development conducted by the assessee is delivered to the customers/AE through electronic media. The mode of delivery of result of research and development cannot determine the nature of the functions/activities of the assessee. Therefore, the TPO was right in conducting search on the data base 'prowess' using the word 'research and development'
Adoption of Vimta Labs as a comparable - Held that:- The relative risk profile of the comparable company, particularly on the factors of human involvement in the clinical trails needs to be evaluated and a determination made whether such differences in risk needs to be adjusted or whether such risks are not amenable for adjustment at all, as claimed by the assessee. In view of the observations and also inconsistencies in the approach of the assessee and also in view of the fact that the assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing for A.Y 2006-07 against adoption of Vimta Labs as a comparable and also in view assessee's submissions that there has been a change in the classification of the Vimta Labs in the database in AY 2006-07, and also additional evidence filed before us with regard to the risks encountered by Vimta Labs and Celestial Labs, it is deemed fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the AO/TPO for reconsideration of the issue de novo for all the A.Ys.
Computation of deduction u/s 10A - Held that:- As decided in Yokogawa India case [2011 (8) TMI 845 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] for computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act, the profit of eligible units have to be deducted at source and do not enter into the computation of income and as a consequence of which, the losses suffered by non eligible units cannot be set off against the profits of eligible units. Further it has been held that the depreciation and business loss of eligible units relating to the assessment year 2000-01 onwards is eligible for set off and carry forward for set off against the income post tax holiday as per the amended provision of sec. 10A(vi) amended with retrospective effect from 1/4/2001. Thus Losses of non-10A units cannot be set off against profit of 10A unit.
TP adjustment to the ALP on account of interest on external commercial borrowings - Held that:- The interest rate is depending upon the credit rating of the borrowings and also on the prices and economic conditions prevailing at the time of advancing the loan. The assessee has obtained the loans in the year 2001 and the issue has been considered by the TPO for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and also for the assessment year 2008-09. After considering the assessee's submissions, the TPO accepted the rate of interest fixed in the loan agreements. In view of rules of uniformity and consistency interest rate on ECB should be taken as fixed in loan agreement in computation of ALP.
Exclusions of telecommunication expenses and travelling expenses incurred in foreign currency from the export turnover but not making the corresponding reduction from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10A - Held that:- As decided in Tata Elxi Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] when any expenditure is reduced from the export turnover, then the same should also be reduced from the total turnover for the purposes of computation of deduction u/s 10A.
-
2013 (2) TMI 606 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Applicability of Sec 194C - TDS provision on machinery hire charges prior to 13.7.2006 - whether the addition made by the AO has rightly been deleted by the learned CIT(A), holding that the provisions of s. 194C are not attracted - Held that:- Provisions of section 194C are applicable when the contract is entered into (i) for carrying out any work and (ii) supply of labour to carry out any work. Therefore, the main condition prescribed in s. 194C is that there must be carrying out of any work whether tangible or intangible.
In the instant case, the assessee was not under an obligation to carry out the work as it was not under the control of the lender and the possession of the machinery temporarily was passed to the assessee after entering into agreement with the lender. Therefore, in the present case, taking of the machinery and equipment on hire would not amount to a contract for carrying out any work as contemplated in s. 194C. The said contract i.e. taking of machinery and equipment on hire also cannot be treated with a contract for supply of labour. Therefore, the provisions of s. 194C were not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case, as such no disallowance was called for under s. 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. See CIT Versus Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd.(2006 (1) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT)
The provisions of section 194-1 are not applicable to the facts of the present case because the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration ends on 31st March 2006 while insertion of the words "machinery or plant or equipment" has been made effective from 13th July, 2006 i.e. much after the end of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the provisions of s. 194-1 of the Act are also not applicable to the facts of the present - in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 605 - ITAT CHENNAI
Benefit of registration u/s 12AA (1)(b)(ii) disallowed - certificate of exemption under section 80G(5) was also denied - Held that:- It can be construed that the case of the assessee trust is squarely covered by the law laid down by Foundation of Ophthalmic & Optometry Research Education Centre [2012 (8) TMI 777 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as perusal of the order passed under section 12AA shows that CIT has not commented on the objects of the Trust. The CIT after examining the statement of accounts formed an opinion that since no expenditure towards any charitable activity is shown in the statement of accounts, therefore carrying out of genuine charitable activities is absent in this case.
It would be relevant to mention here that the trust was formed on 11.1.2012, the application for registration under section 12AA was submitted by the appellant on 27.3.2012 i.e. within a period of three months of its creation. The school activities started in June, 2012, the appellant submitted its books of accounts upto September, 2012 before CIT. The CIT after examining the statement of accounts for such a short period, formed its opinion that the activities of trust are not charitable in nature. The CIT has not raised any objection on the objects of the trust. In our considered opinion, it was premature for CIT to judge the activities of the Trust by just glancing through the statement of accounts of the trust of such a short period. Therefore, set aside the order of the CIT and direct the CIT to grant registration to the assessee trust under section 12AA. Consequent to the registration under section 12AA also direct the CIT to consider the application of the assessee for grant of initial certificate of exemption under section 80G(5) - in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 604 - ITAT COCHIN
Fair market value for the purpose of computation of capital gain - assessee took it as at Rs. 5,588 per cent as on 01-04-1981 where as AO on the basis of the letter received from Sub Registrar has fixed at Rs.466 per cent - Held that:- For the purpose of estimating the fair market value as on 01-04-1981 consideration of the locality in which the land is situated, the accessability to infrastructure facilities, comparative sale instances in the locality, potentiality for future development, distance between the land and the bus stand, railways station, airport, etc has to be made. The guideline value fixed by the Sub Registrar is only a guideline value to ascertain the market value and may be one of the factors to be taken into consideration for estimating the fair market value, however, it cannot be the sole basis for fixing the fair market value as on 01-04-1981. As the taxpayers now claim that in the case of the neighbour the fair market value as on 01-04-1981 was fixed at Rs.2,300. Unfortunately, all these facts were not considered by the assessing authority therefore the assessing officer has to reconsider the issue in the light of all factors mentioned above and thereafter take a decision - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Exemption u/s 54, 54F and 54EC denied - as per AO the taxpayers have deposited the amount in the fixed deposit in State Bank of Travancore, Pettah Branch, Trivandrum - Held that:- Unable to accept the claim of the taxpayers as legislature has framed the scheme for the purpose of giving exemption from the capital gain tax by asking the taxpayer to deposit the amount in the capital gain bond scheme. Therefore, if the taxpayer wants to take benefit of the scheme the money has to be deposited in the capital gain bond. Deposit of money in the fixed deposit cannot be construed as deposit in the capital gain bond, therefore the taxpayers are not eligible for exemption at all - against assessee.
Indexed cost of improvement declined - Held that:- As on the inspection of the land, the revenue authorities found that no improvement was undertaken by the taxpayers. No material is available on record to suggest that the taxpayer has undertaken any improvement in the land therefore no infirmity in the orders of the lower authority - against assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 603 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS on fees for technical services - DTAA between India and UK - whether the agreement entered into by the assessee and Xennia was about purchase for machinery only or it dealt with something more than that ? Held that:- Referring to the terms of the agreement clearly prove that Xennia had supplied the technology to the assessee. Not only the assessee was using it, it had the right over the Intellectual Property also. Agreement entered in to by the assessee-company allowed it 'to file patent application, design application or any such application for intellectual property rights arising out of foreground IP'. In these circumstances, the view of FAA is to be agreed that the transaction was not for sale of printer only & it included the technology also. When a particular technology was made available to the assessee by Xennia exclusively, it cannot be said that the agreement was only for sale of printer. Therefore, upholding the order of the FAA, effective Ground of appeal i.e. Ground No.1 decided against the assessee.
@ 15% or 10% as prescribed in section 115A(1)(b)(BB)- Perusing the provisions of the Act to be covered u/s. 115A(1)(b)(BB) as per the said provisions, tax on dividends, royalty and technical service fees in case of foreign companies has to be computed in a particular manner, if it is entered in to after a particular date. As neither the AO nor the FAA had any occasion to deal with the issue. Assessee had also not raised it before the FAA. So, in the interest of justice be restored to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of deciding the question of applicability of lower rate of tax for the transaction-in-question - in favour of assessee by way of remand.
............
|
