Indian Company exercising control and supervision over a seconded employee and bearing the salary cost should be considered as an economic employer and not liable to withhold tax under Section 195 of the Act on the reimbursement of the salary to the foreign company on which tax has been withheld under Section 1923 of the Act. Further the Tribunal held that the payment to IDS USA did not represent ‘Fees for Technical Services’
First List of Allotment of Statutory audits of UCBs for the F.Y. 2011-12 in Maharashtra – Download the List
CA Anand Parkash, FCA, addressed a letter dated 30.4.2012 to Delhi High Court in which he set out the numerous difficulties faced by Income Tax assessees country wide due to the faulty processing of the Income Tax Returns and the TDS deducted at source and request that certain directions be issued by this Hon’ble Court so that lakhs of tax payers are saved from the harassment in filing revised returns/rectification petitions every year.
In this case it is an undisputed fact that the tax on the entire income received by these assessees was required to be deducted at source at the appropriate rates by the respective payers u/s 195 of the Act . The Revenue have not placed before us any material controverting these findings of the ld. CIT(A) nor pointed out any contrary decision so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter.
It is a fact that the inaccuracy involved in instant case is of Rs. 124.04 lakhs which works out to nearly 6 per cent of the profits and the assessee describes the same as trivial and ignorable. Stand of revenue in this regard is that the Assessing Officer has only to establish the inaccuracy in the books of account maintained by the assessee and the triviality or otherwise is not the issue. The provisions are clear that in principle the Assessing Officer can assume jurisdiction under section 145 either for the reasoning of the ‘incompleteness of the books or for the reasoning of the inaccuracy of the same.
Section 40 is applicable only when deductions under Sections 30 to 38 are being made in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession under Section 28. The exception in Section 40 is carved out, only for the purpose of Section 28 and not for computing the exemption of income of a charitable trust under Section 11.
There is no dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee while explaining the source of jewellery interalia stated that Mrs. Darshana K. Jethani has received jewellery of gold and diamond by way of ‘Will’ of Smt.Lachmi Ukarmal Mangtani, her grandmother. In support, he also placed on record the copy of the said will for verification and also stated that the said will was executed in the presence of Dr.Murli M. Ratnani (PAN- address).
Division Benches of this Court in Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Vs. UOI ILR (1974) Del 847 and Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs ILR (1987) Del 235 have held that where the power to do or not to do a thing is optional and discretionary and there is no statutory obligation, direction to the Executive to do a particular thing cannot be given even where matter is of public importance.
Even if any provision of law is mandatory and provides for charging of tax or interest, the view taken in CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd 247 ITR 209 (SC) is that such charge by the assessing officer should be specific and clear and assessee must be made to know that the assessing officer has applied its mind and has ordered charging of interest. The mandatory nature of charging of interest and the actual charging of interest by application of mind and the mention of the proviso of law under which such interest is charged are two different things.
In the instant appeal, there are total three grounds. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raises the same issue. Both impugn the directions issued by Ld. CIT (A) to the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports 318 ITR 87 in view of the fact that the above decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 29.6.2010.
