Looking to the nature of professional services rendered to the KPMG USA, it is evident that it does not fall in any of the terms of definition given for Royalty under Article 12 of Indo US DTAA. It was purely a professional service for consultancy which were rendered outside India and nor for supply of scientific, technical, industrial or commercial knowledge or information. Thus, nature of payment do not fall within the meaning of Article 12 and, therefore, there was no liability to deduct TDS and consequently disallowance made under section 40(ia) is uncalled for.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the partners Shri C.P. Mathur and Shri L.C. Mathur contributed Rs. 8 lacs and Rs. 4,30,000/- respectively as their capital and the Assessing Officer made the addition by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act. On a similar issue, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kewal Krishan & Partners, Sri Ganganagar (supra) held as under :-
Apart from arguing that the payments were in the nature of reimbursement of expenses, the assessee has not explained anything about the pricing of the services, for which the so-called reimbursements were made by the Indian subsidiary to the assessee company. It is the case of the assessee that expenses were reimbursed by the Indian subsidiary at par with the invoices issued by third parties.
Subsequently, a tripartite agreement was entered into on 27.10.1994 between the vendors P. Srinivsan, R. Dhanapal, T.T.V. Dhinakaran T.R. Harikrishnan G. Balasundaram, R. Annamalai, K. Sadagopal and M.K. Saravanan represented by the Power of Attorney M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd., who in turn also appeared as a confirming party and M/s. Sudsun Housing I Ltd. as a purchaser, wherein the above said vendors agreed to convey the balance of 83.96% undivided share of the lands in favour of the purchaser.
In the case before us, it is not been established that the assessee has written off the outstanding liabilities in the books of account. The Appellate Tribunal is justified in taking the view that as assessee had continued to show the admitted amounts as liabilities in its balance sheet the same cannot be treated as assessment of liabilities. Merely because the liabilities are outstanding for last many years, it cannot be inferred that the said liabilities have seized to exist. The Appellate Tribunal has rightly observed that the Assessing Officer shall have to prove that the assessee has obtained the benefits in respect of such trading liabilities by way of remission or cessation thereof which is not the case before us.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) may apply for a declaration of contravention of civil penalty provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, pecuniary penalty orders , compensation orders and orders disqualifying a person from managing corporations for a period . In proceedings in which declarations of contravention, pecuniary penalty orders and disqualification orders were sought, ASIC alleged that the defendants who are the present respondents had each breached his or her duty as a director or an officer of a listed public company. ASIC alleged, and the directors denied, that the directors had approved the company’s releasing to the Australian Stock Exchange an announcement that was misleading. The minutes of the board meeting, confirmed at a subsequent board meeting, recorded the tabling of a draft announcement and its approval by the board.
