We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal; and the appeal is devoid of any merits. Both the substantial questions raised by the appellant do not involve any substantial question of law and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Insofar as question (b) is concerned, it becomes academic as if the eight comparables selected by the TPO are found not to be functionally comparable then the difference between the operating margin of the respondent at 15.05% as against the 18.97% of comparable companies being within the range of +/ – 5% the amounts received by the respondent – assessee is within the statutory limits. Therefore, we see no reason to entertain question (b).
On 27 July, 2009, Notification No.24/2009-Service Tax, the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance issued a Notification under section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 exempting the Notification No.24/2009-Service Tax taxable service referred to in section 65(105)(zzg) provided to any person by any other person in relation to management, maintenance or repair of roads, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon. The earlier Notification was amended on 21 January, 2010 to expand the scope of the exemption to cover, inter alia, the management, maintenance or repair of roads, bridges, tunnels, dams, airports, railways and transport terminals.
The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee that merely participation of the assessee will not validate the reassessment proceeding if the notice is invalid, is of no help, in view of the fact that the question of validity of notice under Section 147 of the Act is not in issue. The only defect which could be pointed out is that the assessment year was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.
There is another aspect of the matter. The purport of unearned increase is to, in addition to the premium charged by the appellant DDA at the time of granting the lease, entitle the appellant DDA to share 50% of the increase in value of the leasehold rights from the date when the lease was given and till the date of transfer. The transfer of the leasehold rights in the present case, as aforesaid, is under the aegis of this Court. There is no doubt as to the consideration for the said transfer. It is not in dispute that the matter has throughout been pending in this Court on the issue of unearned increase. We are of the opinion that it would be highly unjust and unfair to ask the respondent M/s Aeroshine who though has purchased the leasehold rights at the rates of the year 1983-85, to pay unearned increase to the appellant DDA of the year 2004 or of today.
The key words used in Section 40(a)(ia), according to us, are on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII –B. If the question is which expenses are sought to be disallowed? The answer is bound to be “those expenses on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII –B.
Moreover, this Appeal is filed from an order rejecting a Misc. Application for rectification. An appeal from an order dismissing a Misc. Application for rectification is not maintainable as held by this Court in the matter of Chem Amit v/s. ACIT reported in 272 ITR 397.
From the above portion, we noticed that the Tribunal has bifurcated the expenditure in two parts – first related to investment of Rs. 5907.18 lakhs in foreign subsidiaries, it was held that the dividend income from such subsidiaries is taxable in India and that therefore, Section 14A would have no applicability. The remaining amount pertain to investment of Rs. 38 Crores [rounded off] made in Indian subsidiaries. In this respect, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had to its disposal, own interest free funds many times over the investment in question. As per the balance sheet as on 31st March 2005, the assessee had interest free fund of Rs. 929.57 Crores.
The objection of the Revenue that the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act is available to an industrial park only on CBDT notifying the industrial park under Rule 18C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ for short). This the CBDT did only on 5th June 2006. Therefore, according to the Revenue the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in terms of sub-section (4)(iii) thereof would be available as from Assessment Year 2007-08 and not earlier.
The Tribunal found that a tax payer can manage his affairs to reduce tax liability within the frame work of law and that the sale of goods at a lesser price to the sister concerns than to the non-sister concerns, does not violate any provision of law.
