It has now been decided to allow QFIs [hereinafter defined as per the revised definition in terms of para 2 (v) below] to purchase on repatriation basis debt securities subject to the following terms and conditions : (i) Eligible instruments and eligible transactions – QFIs shall be permitted to invest through SEBI registered Qualified Depository Participants (QDPs) (defined as per the extant SEBI regulations) in eligible corporate debt instruments, viz. listed Non-Convertible Debentures(NCDs), listed bonds of Indian companies, listed units of Mutual Fund debt Schemes and “to be listed” corporate bonds (hereinafter referred to as ‘eligible debt securities’) directly from the issuer or through a registered stock broker on a recognized stock exchange in India.
Kindly make a reference to para 2(v) of our circular IDMC. PDRS. No. PDS.1/03.64.00/2000-01 dated October 6, 2000 on the captioned subject wherein it has been stated that services of brokers should not be used for sale of securities allotted in primary issues on the same day. 2. The guidelines have since been reviewed and it has been decided that services of brokers can also be availed for carrying out such sale contracts.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1/162 Taxman 465, has considered the period of limitation for the purpose of section 263 in a case where a series of orders were passed by the assessing authority in the case of that assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the period of limitation commenced from the date of the original assessment order, in which the issues sought to be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, have been discussed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the subsequent orders passed by the lower authorities on different dates cannot be relied on by the Commissioner of Income-tax for reckoning the period of limitation. It is, therefore, necessary to see that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the date of that order is to be considered in which the disputed issues have been considered by the lower authorities, at the latest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the period of limitation begins from the original assessment in respect of those items.
When the assessee is not in the business of leasing out of the property and the intention of letting out the premises in question was not to exploit the business assets in relation to the business of the assessee then the said property would not fall under the exception as provided u/s 2(ea)(i)(5) of the W T Act being commercial establishment or complex.
The Assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act for AY 2009-10, in so far as it relates to the profit derived from developing housing project, cannot be regarded as income of a charitable trust or institution within the meaning of Sec.11(1)(a) of the Act, because carrying on of the housing project was not a charitable purpose even in AY 2009-10 in view of the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The income from developing housing project by virtue of the provisions of Sec.13(8) of the Act would become part of the total income under the Act.
In the instant case, Amish Kumar Patel in his statement under Section 131 of the IT Act has nowhere said that the money in question belonged to the petitioner’s firm or was to be delivered to it. Instead, he has stated that the money in question was handed over to him by Praveen Bhai who was found untraceable at the address provided by Amish Kumar. This being so, the petitioners do not get any advantage of Vindhya Metal Corpn.’s case (supra), being distinguishable on facts.
When a notification is issued exercising the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 90A of the Act, it can have effect only on those types of agreement mentioned in sub-section (1) thereof. If such a notification goes beyond that mandate, it will have to be ignored to the extent it goes overboard. Even if the term may be taxed has been given a meaning by the Government through a Notification No. 90A(3) of the Act, so as to extend such meaning to terms used in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, it will have to be ignored.
From decision in case of CGG Veritas Services, SA (supra) it is clear that (i) fee for technical services having business PE or fixed place of profession will be assessable under section 44DA, (ii) fee for technical services without having business PE or fixed place of profession will be assessable under section 115A. The Tribunal has further held that fee for technical services from assessment year 2011-12, whether rendered in connection with prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oil, will be assessable either under section 44DA or under section 115 depending upon the fact whether such receipts are effectively connected with PE or fixed place of profession or not.
We may also notice that the proviso to Section 147 of the Act is fully applicable as the assessee had disclosed all the materials facts at the time of original assessment. Even if the materials/evidence was not enclosed with the return, full and true details/material was disclosed during the course of the original proceedings. The turnover or sales made to DMRC has not been disputed.
In the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2011] 12 taxmann.com 309/201 Taxman 237 of Uttarakhand High Court (Uttarakhand), it has been observed that a jurisdictional Commissioner is not to be nominated as a member of the DRP under rule 3(2) of the Rules. By doing this, the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done would be ensured. In the instant case, there was no dispute that one of the members of DRP was the DIT (TP-I)/jurisdictional Commissioner of the assessee when the draft assessment order was passed. Therefore, there was merit in the submissions of the assessee that the order passed by the DRP is liable to be set aside as the same is contrary to the observations of the High Court of Uttarakhand.
