As CA certificate did not conform to the provisions contained in the regulations which requires that the certificate of the Chartered Accountant should be in confirmation of the Audited Accounts of the promoters/applicant for the five years preceding the date of the application. We are unable to approve the observations made by SAT that “neither the regulations nor the eligibility criteria in Form A requires the applicant to produce the annual accounts of the promoter.”
The above factual matrix of the case nowhere proves that the assessee had either concealed the income or furnished any inaccurate particulars. The very fact that it had duly mentioned the consideration in the year of receipt itself proves its bona fides. In this regard, we fortify our opinion from the hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Metal Rolling Works Ltd. (supra).
Admittedly the assessee is involved in the manufacturing activity also and marketing its own products i.e. iron powder. Apart from that, the assessee is importing iron product and marketing the same that is a trading activity. Nothing has been brought out on record by the DRP as well as the TPO that the assessee has to incur cost for the sales achieved by the parent company as in the case of its own marketing.
From the decision of the hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 192 (Delhi) it is clear that ‘business or commercial rights of similar nature’ are not manufactured or produced over-night, but are brought into existence by experience and reputation. The non-compete fee is outcome of an agreement entered into between two parties.
AO is directed to give an opportunity to assessee for cross examining persons whose statements are used against assessee. The statements have been recorded from the Indian personnel and might have been examined with reference to the Indian Company, however, assessee’s contention that being a foreign company, it has a right to cross examine the persons who gave statements cannot be denied. It is already on record that assessee has made the request before AO as well as the DRP on this issue. Therefore, we direct AO to allow the assessee to cross examine the individuals whose statements were recorded and were relied upon by the Revenue so that assessee can contest/justify/accept the statements.
In the case of Cushman and Wakefield (S) Pte. Ltd. (supra), the applicant was a foreign company incorporated in Singapore. It was engaged in the business of rendering services in connection with acquisition, sales and dealings in real estate and other services such as, advisory and research facilities management, project management etc. in the field of real estate.
The payment by CRS & Sons Co. Ltd., on the basis of franchise agreement to various persons cannot be treated as payment to Directors who have substantial interest in the company and Section 2 (24) (iv) cannot be invoked.
The contention of the assessee that the payments in question were made to the builder not in the assessment year 2008-2009, but in the earlier years has been rightly rejected by the CIT because, firstly, the payments made in the earlier years if any related to purchase of flat No. B-92 on the 9th floor and not in respect of flat No.A-46 on the 4th floor. If the amounts paid on 07.03.2008 were infact paid in the earlier years, the same would have found place in the agreement dated 07.03.2008.
Learned counsel appearing for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of this court in CIT v. Ayesha Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 266 (Mad.), wherein in respect of the claim made for the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee claimed the amounts spent on painting, relaying of the damaged floors, partitions, etc., as revenue expenditure. On an appeal before this court by the Revenue, it was pointed out that the assessee incurred expenditure for relaying of the damaged floors, painting and partition in respect of the leased property. Referring to the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468, this court pointed out that the expenditure incurred in respect of the maintenance of the leased premises was deductible as revenue expenditure.
