In the present case, it is an admitted position where the appellant had not furnished the return within time allotted to him under sub sections (1) and (2) and therefore, his case clearly falls within the provision of section 139 (4). Section 139 (5) merely stipulates that it is applicable to any person who has furnished the return under sub sections (1) or (2). In the present case, therefore, if the appellant had filed the return in time, and thereafter had filed a rectified return, he could be permitted to do so under the said provision. Therefore, from the aforesaid provisions it can be seen that the Legislature in its wisdom had intended to give the benefits of filing a revised return only to those persons who fall within the four corners of section 139 sub sections (1) and (2) of the said Act. If the legislature had intended to also give the same benefits to an assessee who had not furnished the return within time, it would have said so in sub clause (5). The very fact that sub clause 4 is not referred to in sub clause (5) clearly indicates the intention of the legislature.
Given the definition of ‘lease or tenancy’ and the definition of ‘rent’ as appearing in Section 194 I Explanation, unless the payment is with reference to the use of any specified land or a building, payment made for availing of the services as in the nature landing or parking, as available in the present case before us, cannot be construed as ‘rent’.
In the present case, it is not even the case of the Revenue that shares were sold at a price lower than the market rate. If that be so, the question of inflating the loss by transferring the shares to group company would not arise. Under ordinary circumstances, it is always open to the assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on to certain bunch of shares or to sell the same to avoid further loss,
The submission that the upfront appraisal fee constitutes fees for technical services within the meaning of those words in Article 13(4)(c) is unsustainable. The said fees did not constitute payment in consideration of the respondent rendering any technical or consultancy services to the applicant/borrowers.
The proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act creates a bar upon the AAR to admitting an application (for advance ruling); it is also is a jurisdictional bar to the Authority to rule, under Section 245R(4). The proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act creates a bar to the jurisdiction of the Authority if it is seen that any of the conditions are fulfilled. The rationale for the bar appears to be straightforward;
To implement the objects of the company two of the shareholders gifted 25000 shares of M/s. Infosys Technologies Limited. The said shares were shown as investment. Merely because the company has earned profits by selling some of the shares, that doesn’t mean that the company is engaged in shares trading.
The Tribunal does not state that the material, including the comparables, furnished by the assessee was inadequate. The department also does not contend that the comparables were inadequate. They have analyzed the same in a particular manner whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has analyzed the same in a different manner. In other words, the revenue has not contended and the Tribunal had not held that the relevant comparables are insufficient.
The question as to whether the expenditure would fall for consideration under section 35AB or the question as to whether the expenditure is on account of revenue or capital has to be decided by taking note of the facts and circumstances leading to the said expenditure. As pointed out by the Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd.[1998] 98 Taxman 112, in order to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, one must look at the nature and character of the advantage in a commercial sense having regard to the purpose of the outlay and its intended object and effect. As pointed out by High Court if the expenditure is for carrying on or conduct of the business, then it may be regarded as an integral part of the profit making process, and the expenditure qualifies for being considered as a revenue expenditure.
Various objections raised by AO as mentioned above have been verified by ld. CIT(A) and found that land and building and machineries are new. Capitals introduced by the Directors are from their own sources and not by transferring from M/s. Shagun. Out of 70 employees employed by assessee company, only 8 employees were related to M/s Shagun and this is not a reason that for employing the ex-employees of any other company curtails the benefit allowable to the assessee.
The appeal was filed in June, 2000. Our Court in the matter of CIT Vs. Vijay V.Kavekar in Income Tax Appeal No.78 of 2007 dated 29th July, 2011 held that the CBDT Circular No.2/2011 issued on 9th February 2011 directing the Revenue not to file appeals under Section 260A in cases where the tax effect is less than Rs.10/- lacs. The said circular has retrospective effect and would also apply in respect of pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal would also not be entertained on the ground that the tax effect is less than Rs.10/- lacs.
