|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 495 Records
-
2006 (10) TMI 265
Issues:
1. Re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Taxability of Rs. 22 lakhs received by the assessee.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act
The assessee appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) XXIX, Mumbai dated 28-2-2003 for assessment year 1997-98, challenging the re-opening of assessment under section 147. The counsel for the assessee did not press this ground of appeal during the hearing, leading to its rejection by the tribunal.
Issue 2: Taxability of Rs. 22 lakhs
The dispute revolved around the taxability of Rs. 22 lakhs received by the assessee from the employer after resigning from the company. The assessee claimed this amount as exempt from tax, considering it as an ex gratia payment voluntarily made by the employer. However, the Assessing Officer taxed this amount under section 17(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act.
Upon detailed examination, the tribunal found that the payment of Rs. 22 lakhs was closely associated with the employment of the assessee, as it was received shortly after the termination of his job. The tribunal interpreted the expression 'profit in lieu of salary' under section 17(3)(i) to encompass such payments made by an employer to an employee in connection with the termination of employment. The tribunal emphasized that the termination referred to in the provision includes voluntary resignation or retirement. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the taxability of the amount based on the legislative intent and the circumstances of the case.
The counsel for the assessee argued that the ex gratia payment should not be taxed as 'profit in lieu of salary' under section 17(3)(i), citing various judgments. However, the tribunal distinguished those judgments as inapplicable to the present case and dismissed the appeal, ruling that the amount was rightfully taxed by the authorities.
In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, affirming the taxability of the Rs. 22 lakhs received as part of the employment termination benefits.
This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal aspects and arguments presented in the judgment regarding the re-opening of assessment and the taxability of the amount received by the assessee, providing a detailed understanding of the tribunal's decision.
-
2006 (10) TMI 264
Issues: Determination of market value as on 1-4-1981 for computing capital gain and disallowance of expenses incurred on the capital asset sold.
Market Value Determination Issue Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involved a dispute regarding the determination of the market value as on 1-4-1981 for the purpose of computing capital gains on the sale of land. The assessee claimed a market value of Rs. 155 per sq. metre based on a valuer's report, while the Assessing Officer determined it to be Rs. 25 per sq. metre. The Assessing Officer questioned the valuation report's reliability as it relied on developed land in a specific area due to the lack of recent sale instances. The Tribunal noted that the absence of the Registered Valuer during assessment led to the rejection of the report by the lower authorities. However, the Tribunal emphasized that a Registered Valuer's report should be considered as an expert opinion unless proven otherwise. As there was no concrete evidence contradicting the valuation report, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough re-evaluation. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to gather additional evidence, such as surrounding land sale deeds, to determine the fair market value accurately.
Expenses Disallowance Issue Analysis:
The second issue in the appeal pertained to the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 14,25,840 incurred on the capital asset sold by the assessee when computing capital gains. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses as the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting the payments made and did not clarify if the expenses were related to the development of the sold land. The Tribunal found that the details submitted by the assessee were not adequately examined by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside this issue for the Assessing Officer to re-examine and make a well-founded decision. The Tribunal also highlighted that the charging of interest under section 234 would be consequential in this matter. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, indicating that the decision was made solely to address procedural or technical issues rather than the substantive merits of the case.
-
2006 (10) TMI 263
Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) - concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income - claim of deduction u/s 80-IB, filed in the original return of income - HELD THAT:- The case involves genuine difference of opinion with regard to deduction provided under the statute between the assessee and the tax authorities and is thus, clearly outside the scope of Explanation 1 to section 271(1), as the assessee has made full disclosure of all the relevant facts and has acted bona fide.
The assessee has disclosed all the material facts necessary for its assessment and the only question is with regard to the interpretation of the relevant provision of law allowing deduction to the assessee upon fulfilling certain conditions laid down in the relevant provision of law. There is no material before us to suggest that the assessee has not disclosed any relevant particulars or facts before the authorities and has not acted bona fide. Thus, we hold that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which is accordingly cancelled and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
We want to make it clear that our decision is limited only with regard to the validity of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) and shall not effect the merits of claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act, which may be subject-matter of Revision Application pending before the Ld. CIT.
In view of our decision cancelling the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) in this case, the present Stay Application of the assessee becomes infructuous - In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 262
Depreciation on a higher rate - applicable to motor car acquired - commercial vehicle - HELD THAT:- As per the IIIrd proviso to section 32 of the Act, in respect of the asset being commercial vehicle acquired between 2-10-1998 and 31-3-1999, the depreciation has to be allowed on such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed. However, for our purpose the material provision is that the actual cost of the asset so acquired would fall within that block in the year of acquisition and thereafter the W.D.V., i.e., the actual cost less depreciation allowed thereon would be material for computing depreciation in subsequent years. Thus the cost of car is to be treated as W.D.V. for computing depreciation thereon at the specified percentage.
If the provisions of Explanation to this proviso and the definition of maxi-cab and motor cab as given in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are read together then motor vehicles used for hire or reward would not be covered under this proviso to section 32 of the Act, and such motor vehicles would be covered under entry (2)(ii) of Item-3 of Part-A of Appendix-I to rule 5 of the Rules. This conclusion further leads to an interference that the Legislature has given benefit of higher depreciation to the assessees not engaged in the business of Motor Buses, Motor Lorries and Motor Taxies on hire and defining such light motor vehicles as commercial vehicles though intentionally excluding vehicles commercially exploited for yielding income from the definition of commercial vehicle further supports the case of the assessee.
Therefore, nomenclature of commercial vehicle should not be so construed to deprive the assessee of higher depreciation when all the conditions specified in the Act and the Rules have been met by the assessee. We also hold that, till such car is used by the assessee for its business purpose the assessee would get the depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent as per the IIIrd proviso to section 32 of the Act. Thus, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the assessee stand accepted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 261
Issues Involved:
1. Ex parte assessment under Section 144.
2. Addition of share capital and secured loans as income under Section 69.
3. Admission of fresh evidence by the CIT(A).
4. Conducting an enquiry by the CIT(A) versus the Assessing Officer.
5. Verification of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Ex parte Assessment under Section 144:
The assessee, a telecom consultancy and technology products company, filed a return declaring total income under Section 115JA. Due to non-attendance to several notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144. The CIT(A) upheld the ex parte assessment in principle.
2. Addition of Share Capital and Secured Loans as Income under Section 69:
The Assessing Officer noted an increase in share capital to Rs. 2 crore and secured loans to Rs. 98,67,000, treating these as income under Section 69 due to the assessee's failure to explain these items. The total addition amounted to Rs. 1,43,37,219. The CIT(A) required the assessee to furnish detailed information about the shares and share application money. After examining the evidence, the CIT(A) deleted Rs. 96,49,219 but confirmed Rs. 46,88,000, leading to appeals from both the department and the assessee.
3. Admission of Fresh Evidence by the CIT(A):
The CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence submitted by the assessee, including names, addresses, PANs, and confirmations from shareholders. The Assessing Officer objected to the admission of fresh evidence and requested an opportunity to verify it. The CIT(A) admitted the evidence, citing the best judgment assessment as a reason, but did not provide a detailed justification under Rule 46A.
4. Conducting an Enquiry by the CIT(A) versus the Assessing Officer:
The department argued that the CIT(A) should have directed the Assessing Officer to conduct the enquiry due to the copious material involved. The CIT(A) has the power under Section 250(4) to conduct enquiries but chose to do it himself. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) has the authority, it would have been more appropriate to have the Assessing Officer conduct the enquiry due to the complexity and volume of evidence.
5. Verification of Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness of Transactions:
The CIT(A) accepted share contributions where the identity of shareholders was proved through confirmatory letters and PANs. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions also need verification. The CIT(A) did not verify the income-tax records of shareholders or contact them directly, which would have been necessary to establish the existence and genuineness beyond doubt.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence and decide afresh. The Tribunal highlighted that the CIT(A) should have directed the Assessing Officer to conduct the enquiry due to the substantial amount and complexity of the evidence involved. Both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2006 (10) TMI 260
Income - Deemed to accrue or arise in India - non-banking finance company - nature of payment - DTAA between India Australia - whether or not the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee before us, i.e., Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, was required to withhold tax @ 15% from payment of Australian Dollars (A$) 3,25,000 made to M/s. Ford Credit Australia Limited, Australia (Australian company) - HELD THAT:- DR’s reliance on the ruling given, by the Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of ABC [1999 (4) TMI 612 - ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY], we see no need to deal with the same separately. The Assessing Officer had adopted the reasoning approved by the Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling and we have dealt with the same in the course of our consideration to the matter. The prescription of section 245S is unambiguous.
We are not inclined to disturb our conclusions merely because the conclusions arrived at above, and in the light of detailed reasons set out earlier in the order, are at variance with the conclusions arrived at in the said ruling. We have carefully perused the esteemed views of the Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling, and, with respect but without hesitation, we are not persuaded.
Hence, in our considered view, the impugned payment cannot be held to be covered by the scope of expression ‘royalty’ under article 12(3) of the India Australia DTAA. Since the Australian company admittedly does not have any permanent establishment (PE) in India, this payment cannot also be taxed as a business profit of the Australian company in India. It is so in view of the fact that article 7(1) of the applicable tax treaty specifically provides that, "The profits of the enterprises of one of the Contracting States shall only be taxable in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein". This leads us to the conclusion that the right of Indian tax jurisdiction does not extend to taxing the impugned payment of A$ 3,25,000 to the Australian company, i.e., FCAL, for specialized data processing of information furnished by the Indian company.
Having held that the Australian company, i.e., FCAL, did not have any tax liability in India, and as the tax withholding liability is only a vicarious and substitutionary liability, we also hold that the appellant before us, i.e., Indian company by the name of Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, did not have any tax withholding liability so far the payment of A $ 3,25,000 to the Australian company was concerned. The plea of the appellant is accepted.
Thus, we vacate the orders of the authorities below. We also direct the Assessing Officer to refund the taxes deposited by the appellant company, after verifying that the appellant company has not issued tax deduction at source certificate u/s 203 and, accordingly, the credit for the tax deduction at source has not been given to the Australian company in its income-tax assessment in India. The appellant will get the relief, if so admissible in law, accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 259
Deduction of tax at source u/s 194C Or 194J - Payment made to Clearing and Forwarding Agents (‘C&FA’) - managerial services - HELD THAT:- We found that the C&F Agents was required to store, dispose, deliver or redeliver goods as may be determined and notified to such C&F Agents by the assessee. The C&F Agents was required to store the goods by the assessee with all care, prudence and responsibility so that such goods are free from risks as theft, pilferage and damages. We also found that C&F Agents was liable for all damages, pilferage and other losses incurred due to negligence, etc., and undertake to pay on demand in writing made by the assessee without protest the market value of the goods entrusted to such agents. The goods of the assessee was to be received and held by the C&F Agents as bailee/trustee, for and on behalf of the assessee.
Thus, it is crystal clear from the terms of the agreement that payment was made by the assessee to the C&F Agents, was for consolidated set of services which have been broadly described. The main object of the agreement was to ensure correct handling and delivery of goods as per the terms of the assessee. We found that as per the nature of services rendered, the same are in pari materia to the services as contemplated u/s 194C, and the same was not for any professional or technical services as mentioned u/s 194J of the Act.
Thus, any payment of any sum shall be liable for deduction of tax only under one section, therefore, payment is also liable for tax deduction only under one section, as warranted by the nature of services stipulated therein. Combined reading of provisions of sections 194C and 194J vis-a-vis C.B.D.T. Circular makes it abundantly clear that in the instant case payment made by the assessee to the C&F Agents, was for the services which was pre-dominantly for "carrying out work", inter alia, relating to storage despatch, transportation, loading and unloading of goods, etc. Thus, the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source u/s 194C of the Act.
Hence, we are inclined to agree with the learned AR that assessee was not in default for deduction of tax as per provisions of section 194C at the rate of 2 per cent and that lower authorities were not justified for treating the services rendered to the assessee as falling u/s 194J of the Act and thereby liable for deduction of tax at 5%.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee in all the years are allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 258
Issues:
1. Denial of depreciation on building used by the assessee-firm.
2. Classification of expenditure on the construction of a strong room as capital or revenue expenditure.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Denial of Depreciation on Building:
The first issue in this appeal pertains to the denial of depreciation on a building used by the assessee-firm for business purposes, although the property was registered in the names of two partners. The Assessing Officer contended that ownership needed to be registered in the name of the assessee-firm for depreciation to be allowed under section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal examined relevant precedents cited by the Assessing Officer, such as Kalpaka Tourist Home (P.) Ltd. v. CIT and others. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee-firm had financed the building's purchase, and the property was exclusively used for business. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases where ownership issues were present, emphasizing that the firm, despite not being a legal entity under the Indian Partnership Act, had funded the building purchase. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the building and directed the Assessing Officer to grant the depreciation.
2. Classification of Expenditure on Strong Room:
The second issue involved determining whether the expenditure incurred on constructing a strong room in rented premises constituted capital or revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure as capital, allowing only for depreciation. The Tribunal considered precedents like CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. and others, supporting the treatment of such expenditure as revenue. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the strong room construction expenditure was revenue in nature, aligning with the assessee's claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (Appeals) decision and instructed the Assessing Officer to permit the expenditure. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that a ground related to legal expenses deduction was not pursued by the assessee, resulting in its dismissal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, granting relief on both issues of depreciation on the building and the classification of expenditure on the strong room.
-
2006 (10) TMI 257
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of tax liability under section 192 of the Income-tax Act for vehicle reimbursements.
2. Levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Treatment of maintenance/repairs and petrol expenses as perquisites under section 17(2)(iv).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of Tax Liability under Section 192 for Vehicle Reimbursements:
The primary issue was whether the vehicle reimbursements made by the assessee to its employees should be considered part of the salary for the purpose of tax deduction at source (TDS) under section 192 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the entire payment of vehicle reimbursement is part of the salary and raised a demand of Rs. 7,33,122 under section 201(1) and Rs. 6,34,199 as interest under section 201(1A).
The assessee contended that the reimbursements were for actual expenses incurred on the use of vehicles for official duties, supported by self-declarations from employees. The CIT(A) partially agreed, treating maintenance/repair expenses as perquisites under section 17(2)(iv) but allowing 50% of petrol expenses as spent for official duties.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a detailed reimbursement scheme and that employees provided monthly and annual declarations certifying the expenses. The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the reimbursements were not includible in salary for TDS purposes, supported by the judgment in the case of ONGC Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee could not be declared in default for any short deduction due to a wrong estimate.
2. Levy of Interest under Section 201(1A):
The CIT(A) upheld the levy of interest under section 201(1A), considering it mandatory and compensatory in nature. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the interest in view of the relief granted. Since the Tribunal decided that there was no demand under section 201(1), there would consequently be no interest liability under section 201(1A).
3. Treatment of Maintenance/Repairs and Petrol Expenses as Perquisites:
The CIT(A) had treated the entire amount paid for maintenance/repairs as perquisites under section 17(2)(iv), arguing that maintaining the vehicles was the employees' obligation. For petrol expenses, 50% was considered for official duties, and the rest was added to the salary after allowing a deduction as per rule 2BB(2)(10).
The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) regarding maintenance/repair expenses, citing rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, which states that if the car is used wholly for official purposes, there is no perquisite value. The Tribunal noted that the scheme required employees to certify that the expenses were incurred for official purposes, and thus, the entire reimbursement should not be added to the salary. The Tribunal also found that the facts were similar to the ONGC Ltd. case, where such reimbursements were not included in the salary for TDS purposes.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling that the vehicle reimbursements should not be included in the salary for TDS purposes under section 192. Consequently, there was no liability under section 201(1) or interest under section 201(1A). The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding the treatment of petrol expenses and deductions as per rule 2BB(2)(10). The decisions for the subsequent assessment years followed the same reasoning and outcomes.
-
2006 (10) TMI 256
Issues Involved:
1. Refusal of registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the application for registration.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Refusal of Registration under Section 12AA:
The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) refused registration under section 12AA on the grounds that the assessee was neither a trust nor a society. The CIT referred to section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which defines a trust as an obligation annexed to ownership of property for the benefit of another. The CIT concluded that the assessee did not meet this definition as it was not established out of any such obligation. Additionally, the assessee was not registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The CIT also noted that the assessee's primary activities included acquisition and sale of land, which he did not consider charitable purposes under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. He argued that the provision of amenities like roads, light, water, and sewerage were incidental to the main purpose of land transactions.
The assessee argued that it was established under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1982, for the development of towns, which should be considered a charitable purpose under section 2(15). The assessee cited various sections of the Punjab Town Improvement Act that outlined its development schemes, including street schemes, housing accommodation schemes, and re-housing of displaced residents, among others. The assessee further argued that similar entities, like the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, had been granted registration under section 12A despite being involved in industrial development, which was considered an object of general public utility.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the term "institution" is not defined in the Income-tax Act but can be interpreted broadly. The Tribunal referred to the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines an institution as an organization founded for a social purpose. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee, being created for the social purpose of town improvement, qualified as an institution. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's objects, as outlined in the Punjab Town Improvement Act, constituted charitable purposes under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to registration under section 12AA.
2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Application for Registration:
The CIT also refused to condone the delay in filing the application for registration, arguing that the assessee had sufficient legal advice and should have been aware of the deletion of section 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act, which previously exempted its income. The assessee argued that it was unaware of the tax liability arising from the deletion of section 10(20A) until it received a letter from the Secretary to the Government of Haryana. Upon receiving this information, the assessee sought legal advice and promptly filed the application on 1-10-2003, requesting registration with effect from 1-4-2002.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be reasonable and bona fide. The Tribunal noted that similar cases, such as the Market Committee case, had been granted retrospective registration despite delays due to lack of knowledge of fiscal laws. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was due to a bona fide reason beyond the assessee's control and should not prevent the granting of registration. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay and granted registration with effect from 1-4-2002.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the assessee registration under section 12AA and condoning the delay in filing the application. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities constituted charitable purposes and that the delay in filing was due to a bona fide reason.
-
2006 (10) TMI 255
Disallowance of car expenses - incurred as partner of the partnership firm - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income - theory of apportionment - HELD THAT:- We find that car expenses have been incurred by the assessee either for the purpose of partnership business or for personal use. The source of business income is only one. Travelling in the car is either for personal use or for the purpose of his profession in the partnership. Therefore, in our opinion, it has to be held that car was used for the purpose of his profession which generated income partly exempt u/s 10(2A) and partly taxable. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that car was used only for earning remuneration from the partnership firm cannot be accepted. Similarly, other expenses related to the profession carried on by him and therefore, related to both types of income.
Theory of apportionment - In our view, it would be reasonable to apportion the expenditure on the basis of the ratio of the income which is exempted and the income which is taxable. In the present case, a chart has been given in the statement of facts filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). According to this chart, the exempted income u/s 10(2A), while the remuneration received from the firm which is taxable as stated in the assessment order. Therefore, it would be reasonable to disallow on pro rata basis.
The Order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the disallowance accordingly. However, it is, clarified that assessee himself has disallowed 20% for personal use and therefore, the disallowance u/s 14A is to be made with reference to the balance 80% of the expenditure.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed while the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 254
Assessment order u/s 143(3) - additional income - survey proceedings u/s 133A - HELD THAT:- Once every purchase is collated with the sale thereof in terms of quantum as well as value, no further burden remains to be discharged by the assessee unless any discrepancy or falsity is pointed out in such collation. The Assessing Officer has not raised even a finger of doubt at this account statement furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. That being so the only course open to the Assessing Officer was to accept the disclosed trading results.
We are therefore satisfied that in the instant case the assessee has been able to discharge the heavy burden that rested upon him while retracting from offer of additional income at the time of survey. As we have pointed out earlier even at that stage the case of the assessee was that the offer was made to buy peace and not because of any concealment of income or discrepancy in accounts detected by survey authorities.
Thus, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) - In the result, this appeal is allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 253
Ad hoc disallowance u/s 14A - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income - HELD THAT:- Section 14A clearly makes a distinction between exempt income and taxable income. It treats both of them as separate classes for computation of income after allocation of expenditure relating thereto and mandates that no deduction in respect of any expenditure shall be allowed against taxable income which is incurred in relation to exempt income. The underlying object is to compute both the exempt income and taxable income correctly, which is possible only after the expenditure incurred in relation thereto is allocated to them.
Hence, we hold that all expenses connected with the exempt income have to be disallowed u/s 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. In this connection, the provisions of sub-section (2)/(3) of section 14A inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 deserve to be noted.
The procedure for computation of disallowance has now been provided in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A of the Income-tax Act. It is no longer open to the Assessing Officer to apply his discretion in computing the disallowance or make ad hoc disallowance u/s 14A. Substantive provisions are contained in sub-section (1) of section 14A prohibiting deduction in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income while procedural provisions regarding computation of the aforesaid disallowance are contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof. Sub-sections (2) and (3) seek to achieve the underlying object of section 14A(1) that any expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income should not be allowed deduction. It is fairly well-settled by a catena of decisions that procedural provisions apply to all pending matters and that the rule against retrospectivity does not hit them.
Thus, we hold that the provisions for quantification of disallowance as contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A are procedural and therefore apply to all pending matters. It is no longer open to the Assessing Officer to make disallowance according to his own discretion or on ad hoc basis. He is statutorily required to compute the disallowance in the manner provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A.
We therefore set aside the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer in this behalf and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in the light of the provisions of section 14A including sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof.
Capital gain on sale of shares - sell to subsidiary company - HELD THAT:- It cannot be laid down as inflexible rule that subsequent events can never be considered for deciding a matter under dispute. It is the duty of the assessee to pay correct amount of tax on its income chargeable to tax. It is the right of the department to realize tax from the assessees on their income chargeable to tax. Subsequent events in the case before us would relate back to the assessment year under consideration.
In our view, the matter should go back to the Assessing Officer with the direction to consider and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground No. 3 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Thus, Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 252
Issues Involved:
1. Charging of additional tax under section 201 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act.
Issue-wise Analysis:
1. Charging of Additional Tax Under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act:
The primary issue revolves around the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) on certain allowances paid to employees, which the assessee claimed were reimbursements for business expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that these allowances were part of the salary and thus subject to TDS under section 192 of the Income-tax Act. The AO computed additional tax at 40% on the amount of these allowances, treating them as part of the salary to avoid TDS provisions.
The assessee argued that these allowances were reimbursements for expenses incurred by employees for business purposes and thus exempt under section 10(14) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, leading the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the nature of the business required employees to incur certain expenses for news gathering, reading materials, and telephone usage, which were reimbursed by the company. The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether these payments were reimbursements or perquisites forming part of the salary was debatable. Citing various judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had a bona fide belief that these were reimbursements and not subject to TDS. The Tribunal referenced the case of Sol Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 79 TTJ (Hyd.) 319, which held that if the assessee did not deduct TDS under an honest belief that the allowances were exempt, the assessee could not be held in default under section 201.
2. Interest Under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act:
The Tribunal examined the applicability of section 201(1A) concerning the interest charged for non-deduction of TDS. It observed that section 201, before its amendment by the Finance Act, 2002, deemed an assessee in default only if no tax was deducted at all, not for short deduction. The amendment, effective retrospectively from 1-4-1962, was not known to the assessee during the relevant financial years (1996-97 and 1997-98). The Tribunal referenced the case of Excel Industries Ltd. [2006] 5 SOT 235 (Mum.), which held that section 201 is a penal section and should be strictly construed. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee could not be deemed in default for short deduction of tax under the pre-amended section 201.
The Tribunal also considered the argument that if the allowances were taxed in the hands of employees, the same tax could not be collected again from the employer. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence from both parties on whether the allowances were taxed in the employees' assessments. However, it referred to the case of Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 832 (MP), which held that once the tax is paid by the employee, the employer cannot be held liable under section 201.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the allowances were reimbursements and not subject to TDS. It held that the assessee could not be deemed in default for short deduction of tax under the pre-amended section 201. Consequently, the additional tax and interest under section 201(1A) were deleted, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 251
Issues involved: The judgment deals with the allowability of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, and 2000-01.
Assessment Year 1997-98:
The respondent assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing of yarn and trading of raw wool and knitted cloth, claimed deduction u/s 80-IA for profits derived from trading activities. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction, stating that only profits from the business of industrial undertaking are eligible. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's claim, emphasizing the use of the words "any business" in section 80-IA. The revenue appealed, citing a High Court decision and a Tribunal order. The assessee argued that section 80-IA is more liberal than the previous section 80-I, allowing deduction for profits from any business of an industrial undertaking. The Tribunal, considering the authoritative High Court decision, ruled in favor of the revenue, stating that trading profits do not qualify as profits derived from an industrial undertaking under section 80-IA. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer's decision was restored.
Assessment Years 1998-99 and 2000-01:
The appeals for these years were decided based on the same issue as in the assessment year 1997-98. The Tribunal applied the decision from the earlier year, upholding the denial of deduction u/s 80-IA for profits derived from trading activities. Consequently, all the revenue's appeals were allowed for these years as well.
-
2006 (10) TMI 250
Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income - section 14A are not applicable to the expenditure incurred in relation to earning of dividend income? - disallowance of the interest paid - investment in shares dividend - exempt u/s 10(33) - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that part of the borrowed money was utilized for the purpose of investment in shares, from which dividend income is received, which is exempt from tax. In view of the decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Harish Krishnakant Bhatt [2004 (8) TMI 342 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] the expenditure being the interest on borrowed capital for the purpose of investment in shares dividend from which is exempt u/s 10(33) of the I.T. Act is not to be allowed as an expenditure in view of the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act.
The interest on borrowings attributable to investments made in foreign companies is to be considered for allowance u/s 57(iii) of the I.T. Act and the same shall be considered by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee has also utilized part of the borrowings raised during the year for investment made in units of growth fund. The claim being of investment in growth plan, no income from which is received from year-to-year and the annual accretions are added to the NAV of the growth fund without any distribution of income which is taxable in the hands of the assessee-company for the year under consideration.
In view of the facts that the income from such investments is not amenable to tax, the interest on such borrowings utilized for making investments in the units of the growth fund is not allowable as an expenditure in view of the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act.
The issue at length was also considered by Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Macintosh Finance Estate Ltd.’s case [2006 (2) TMI 578 - ITAT MUMBAI] and it was held that interest expenses cannot allowed to be added to the cost of investment. Therefore, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Disallowance on total administrative and other expenses - HELD THAT:- We find from the perusal of the administrative expenses that no expenditure is directly relatable to the earning of dividend income and there is no merit in making ad hoc disallowance of portion of the expenditure being attributable to earning of dividend income. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer not to disallow any expenditure towards earning of dividend income.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 249
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80-O
2. Registration and Use of Trademark
3. Calculation of Deduction Amount
Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80-O:
The primary issue is whether the assessee qualifies for a deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contends that the income derived from specialized relocation solutions, which involve the use of its registered trademark and technical know-how, should be eligible for this deduction.
The Assessing Officer (AO) and the first appellate authority (CIT(A)) have different interpretations. The AO argues that the deduction under Section 80-O is only available for the exploitation of intellectual property (patent, trademark, technical know-how) abroad and not for the actual export of goods or services. The CIT(A) supports this view, emphasizing that the assessee's income is from providing services, not from the use of its trademark or technical know-how by foreign enterprises.
2. Registration and Use of Trademark:
The assessee's trademark is registered in Switzerland, not in India. The CIT(A) asserts that for a deduction under Section 80-O, the trademark must be registered in India. The CIT(A) also argues that the income should be received from a foreign enterprise for the use of the registered trademark outside India.
The assessee counters that the trademark's registration in Switzerland should suffice and that the income derived from its use outside India, even if self-exploited, should qualify for the deduction. The assessee further argues that the trademark's role in securing business should be considered as "use" of the trademark.
3. Calculation of Deduction Amount:
The CIT(A) and the AO argue that only net income, after accounting for both direct and indirect expenses, should be considered for the deduction. The assessee, however, claims that only direct expenses should be deducted, as supported by the Tribunal's decision in Tata Sons Ltd.'s case.
The Tribunal agrees with the assessee's interpretation but finds it challenging to determine the exact portion of income attributable to the use of the registered trademark. The Tribunal suggests that 25% of the net receipts should be attributed to the assessee's regular business activities, and the remaining 75% should be considered for the deduction under Section 80-O.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concludes that the assessee is eligible for a deduction under Section 80-O, even if the trademark is registered outside India. However, it limits the deduction to 75% of the net receipts, attributing the remaining 25% to regular business activities. The AO is directed to verify the revised working and ensure compliance with the Tribunal's guidelines. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 248
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the mid-term review was rightly initiated by the Designated Authority under Rule 23.
2. Whether the withdrawal of duty on imports from the EU and Canada is justified on the ground that the landed value was found higher than the non-injurious price.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Initiation of Mid-Term Review under Rule 23
The appellant Domestic Industry (DI) challenged the mid-term review Notification No. 15/16/2004-DGAD, dated 13-9-2005, regarding imports of Cold rolled Flat Products of Stainless steel from the EU, Japan, Canada, and the USA. The appellant argued that the initiation of the mid-term review was flawed as the applicant-exporter did not provide relevant information/evidence and was absent from the proceedings. They cited the Supreme Court judgments in Rishiroop Polymers v. Designated Authority and Kalyani Steel Ltd. v. Designated Authority, asserting that the applicant-exporter must lead evidence that the continuation of Anti-Dumping duties was no longer warranted. The DI claimed that non-submission of information by the applicant-exporter should have led to the termination of the proceedings, as per the precedent set by these cases.
The Tribunal examined the records and found no objection to the existing mechanism for recommending the withdrawal of duty under Rule 23(1), especially when the landed value was higher than the Non-Injurious Price (NIP). The Tribunal opined that it was mandatory for the Designated Authority to determine the injury margin both in mid-term and sunset reviews. The Tribunal also noted that the Designated Authority had sufficient information to initiate the review and that the applicant-exporter had demonstrated that the landed value was higher than the minimum import price, supporting the review process.
Issue 2: Justification for Withdrawal of Duty on Imports from EU and Canada
The DI argued that the findings in relation to dumping, injury, and causal link were in their favor, yet duties were discontinued against the EU and Canada arbitrarily on the grounds that the injury margin from these territories was negative. They contended that injury margin was not a relevant factor under Section 9A(5) or Rule 23 and that the calculation of the injury margin was flawed due to the absence of relevant information from the exporter.
The Tribunal found that the Designated Authority had followed proper procedures in the investigation. The authority determined that the landed value of imports from the EU and Canada was higher than the NIP, implying that the causal link between dumping and material injury was severed. The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's findings that the injury margin was negative for imports from the EU and Canada, and therefore, the withdrawal of anti-dumping duties was justified. The Tribunal also noted that the improved performance of the domestic industry could be attributed to the anti-dumping duty imposed in 2001 and the general improvement in the steel industry worldwide.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was no warrant for interference with the impugned notification. The appeal was dismissed, and the withdrawal of anti-dumping duties on imports from the EU and Canada was upheld, while the continuation of duties on imports from the USA and Japan was maintained. The Tribunal found that the Designated Authority's conclusions were based on a thorough analysis of the data and were fully justifiable.
-
2006 (10) TMI 247
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the imposition of penalty on the appellant manufacturer under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules and the sustainability of the penalty in the absence of specific reliance on the relevant sub-rule, as well as the position of confiscation and redemption fine concerning the seized goods.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25
The case involved the appellant manufacturer who had been manufacturing readymade garments exempt from Central Excise duty for several years. Following a change in the law, certain garments became liable to duty. The appellant, believing they were exempt, was later visited by an Excise officer who seized goods and issued a show-cause notice for confiscation and penalties under Rule 25 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner reduced the penalty but did not specify the clause of Rule 25 being relied upon. The Tribunal held that without specifying the clause, the order was not sustainable, citing the need for the assessee to be informed of the exact nature of the contravention.
Issue 2: Sustainability of Penalty without Specific Reliance
The appellant's counsel argued that the order was unsustainable as it did not specify the clause of Rule 25 being relied upon, similar to a previous Supreme Court ruling. The absence of specific reliance on a particular clause of the rule hindered the appellant's ability to understand the case against them and raise a valid defense. The lack of clarity in the order regarding the law violated led to the appeal succeeding and the impugned order being set aside.
Conclusion:
The judgment highlighted the importance of specifying the particular provision in a rule when imposing penalties to ensure the respondent party is aware of the charges and can defend themselves effectively. The lack of specificity in the order regarding the clause of Rule 25 being applied rendered the order unsustainable, leading to the appeal succeeding and the impugned order being set aside.
Note: The judgment was delivered by Shri C.N.B. Nair, J.
-
2006 (10) TMI 246
Issues:
1. Prayer to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount confirmed.
2. Admissibility of modvat credit in respect of Conveyor Belt as capital goods.
3. Consideration of the Larger Bench decision in similar cases.
4. Time limitation for availing credit and issuance of show cause notice.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the prayer to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount confirmed, amounting to Rs. 1,85,273. The appellant sought relief from this condition related to denying modvat credit for a Conveyor Belt as capital goods.
2. The issue of admissibility of modvat credit in respect of the Conveyor Belt was examined. Initially, the credit was allowed by the adjudicating authority, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision based on a Larger Bench decision in a related case. The appellant argued that the Conveyor Belt, part of which was in a neighboring factory, was essential for transporting inputs to the appellant's factory, making it eligible for modvat credit as capital goods.
3. The judgment considered previous decisions by the Tribunal in cases such as Vikas Industrial Gas, Diamond Cement, and Pepsico India Holdings Ltd., where similar situations involving the extension of capital goods were deemed eligible for modvat credit. It was concluded that the part of the Conveyor Belt outside the factory premises was an extension of the capital goods within the appellant's factory, justifying the modvat credit.
4. Regarding the time limitation for availing credit and the issuance of the show cause notice, it was noted that the credit was availed in 1998, and the notice was issued in November 2003. The Deputy Commissioner found no suppression of facts by the appellants, as they regularly filed RT 12 returns. The reversal of this finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the alleged suppression of the fact that part of the Conveyor Belt was outside the factory was deemed insufficient to invoke a longer period of limitation. The judgment emphasized that no mala fide intent could be attributed to the appellants for the oversight by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities.
In conclusion, the judgment allowed the stay petition unconditionally, recognizing the appellant's prima facie case on merits and the absence of justification for invoking a longer period of limitation.
............
|
9911796707
