It is a cardinal principle, when two sovereign nations enter into an agreement and have come to an understanding regarding the terms, views expressed in the agreement, such terms cannot be unilaterally changed. Once the Government of India and Government of UAE had not used the limitation clause of applicability of domestic law in determining the profits and deduction of expenses of PE under Article 7(3), the same cannot be read into even impliedly, that such a provision existed.
U/s 194-I, Income Tax is required to be deducted at source at the time of payment of any income by way of rent @’ 10% for the use of any machinery or plant or equipment. U/s 194C, tax is required to be deducted @’ 2% for carrying out any work which, inter alia, includes carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than by railways. Though generally speaking all types of machinery, plant and equipment given on hire get covered u/s. 194-I but hiring of transport vehicles get specifically covered u/s. 194-C as far as Tax Deduction at source is concerned. Transport vehicles used for carriage of goods and passengers are to be subjected to TDS provisions as per clause (c) of Explanation III of sub-section (2) of section 194C of the I.T. Act.
Voluntary Retirement – Assessee can claim both exemption u/s 10(10C) & rebate u/s 89- The assessee is entitled to the exemption under section 10(10C) of the Act and also rebate under section 89 of the Act in respect of the amount received in excess of Rs.5,00,000 on account of voluntary retirement. Thus their Lordships have held that the assessee, who opts for voluntary retirement, is not only entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) but also rebate under section 89 of the Income Tax Act.
Where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Assessee has submitted in this case that advance was given amounting to Rs. 39,36,860/- to M/s Kohinoor International and interest was charged @ 6%. It was further claimed that the said advances were given out of the partners capital which was Rs. 30,91,322/- as on 31.3.2007. Furthermore, assessee has contended that there were commercial expediency involved in granting of the said advance as the assessee was to obtained distributorship from M/s Kohinoor International. I have carefully considered the submissions. In my considered opinion, submission of the assessee has considerable cogency that there was commercial expediency involved in granting of the said loan.
Assessee is a firm engaged in business of builder and promoter. The issue before us is regarding allowability of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act on partially complete project. The Assessing Officer has denied the deduction on the ground that project was not complete within the stipulated time. There is no dispute with regard to other conditions laid u/s.80IB(10) of the Act,
During the year under consideration, the assessee company had made a payment of 1,09,35,108/- to Google Ireland Ltd. and the said amount was claimed as ‘advertisement expenditure’. While making the said payment, no tax at source was deducted by the assessee on the ground that the amount paid to Google Ireland Ltd. constituted business profits of the said company and since the said company did not have a permanent establishment (PE) in India, the amount paid was not chargeable to tax in India.
It is a fact that assessee has not booked the lease rentals as noted by the AO but on the reason that the assessee being NBFC is following the guidelines issued by RBI and guidelines states that once the party has become a defaulter for at least twelve months that party can be declared as NPA and no income on that part can be booked from the source after failure to get any income.
USCIB believes that the proposed guidelines are too vague to provide certainty to business investors. For example, an important part of certainty is respecting the obligations imposed by double taxation agreements between treaty partners. Treaty obligations should generally not be overridden by GAAR provisions. If India chooses to override a treaty obligation pursuant to Indian law, we believe that the scope of the override should be both narrow and clear. Use of the GAAR provisions to deny treaty benefits in a broad, discretionary manner would be fundamentally inconsistent with the specific limitation on benefits and beneficial ownership provisions of Articles 10 (Dividends), 11 (Interest), 12 (Royalties), and 24 (Limitation on Benefits) of India’s Treaty with the United States and other countries. We believe that the application of the GAAR rules in this manner would constitute an impermissible unilateral amendment of the United States-Indian Treaty.
The provision made for advance tax of Rs.23,50, 000/- debited in the P&L account not added back to income is bonafide mistake. Assessee paid advance tax in the month of March only. It is the first time that provision was debited in P&L account. Had there been any intention to file inaccurate particulars then the assessee could not have paid the advance tax in the last month of assessment year. The assessee concern is a firm which is not having expert chartered accountants at its payroll. Further, this was the first year in which the provision for taxation was debited to the P&L account.
