Assessee stated before the A.O. that this advisory fee related to the loan granted and pertaining to setting covenants, negotiations and execution of documentation, creation of security etc. It shows that the amount from each party was one time receipt related with the rendering of such services for the purposes of sanction of loan.
The limited dispute raised is regarding transfer pricing adjustment in relation to international transactions entered into by the assessee with associate enterprises. There is no dispute either regarding TNMM method followed by the AO or about variables selected for computation of transfer pricing adjustment.
The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921, squarely apply on the facts of the case as the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions precedent provided under section 80-IB(10)(d) as applicable from assessment year 2005-06.
All the agreements, invoices and related documents produced before us lead to the fact that the payments have been made only for supply of manpower for certain amount of hours and nothing more. Since there is no technology, skill, experience, technical plan, design, etc. had been made available either by the assessee or the ACSC as held by the Cit (A), invoking the provisions of Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA for treating the payments as chargeable to tax in India, is not justified.
A short question which arises for determination in this appeal is, whether the Department is entitled to charge interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the assessee bringing forward the tax credit balance into the year of account relevant to Assessment Year 2001-2002?
The mistake on the part of the assessee is that the assessee invested a part amount of sale consideration/ capital gain in residential house instead of gross sale consideration and claimed deduction under section 54F. It is relevant to note that for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act investment of capital gain is the requirement whereas for claiming dedication under section 54F investment of sale consideration is the condition. From the facts of the case it is a clear cut case of bona fide calculation mistake.
To justify the forfeiture of advance money being part of ‘earnest money’ the terms of the contract should be clear and explicit. Earnest money is paid or given at the time when the contract is entered into and, as a pledge for its due performance by the depositor to be forfeited in case of non-performance, by the depositor.
Paragraph 2 of the Instruction No. 3/2011, dated 9-2-2011 shows that that it is the policy of the Government to file appeal before this Tribunal only in those cases where tax effect is more than Rs.3 lakhs. Tax effect has been defined in paragraph 4 of the said instructions as the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed
USDC held that no one really knows how much jail time is necessary to materially deter insider trading; but common sense suggests that most business executives fear even a modest prison term to a degree that more hardened types might not. Thus, a relatively modest prison term should be sufficient, but not more than necessary, for this purpose.
Worldwide, the micro and small enterprises (MSEs) have been accepted as the engine of economic growth and for promoting equitable development. The MSEs constitute over 90% of total enterprises in most of the economies and are credited with generating the highest rates of employment growth and account for a major share of industrial production and exports.
