On the issue of expenditure of 66.82 lakhs towards the issue of shares to the Employees Stock Option is concerned, the Tribunal pointed out that the shares were issued to the employees only for the interest of the business of the assessee to induce employees to work in the best interest of the assessee. The allotment of shares was done by the assessee in strict compliance of SEBI regulations, which mandate that the difference between the market prices and the price at which the option is exercised by the employees is to be debited to the Profit and Loss Account as an expenditure. The Tribunal pointed out that what had been adopted was not notional or contingent as had been submitted by the Revenue.
On reading of Section 10 (15A) of the Act it is apparent to us that for this Section, an Indian company engaged in the business of operation of aircrafts should have acquired aircraft(s) on lease under an agreement. It is only when an Indian company acquires aircraft on lease under an agreement, which was entered into on or before the 1st day of April, 2007, benefit under the said Section is available. Thus, the twin conditions; that the agreement should have been entered into on or before 1st April, 2007 and there should be acquisition of aircraft under the lease before the said date, have to be satisfied.
In the present case, what is apparent is that the lessee (assessee) paid a substantial amount (Rs. 2.53 crores) in 1989 at the time of entering into the transaction. It was a precondition for securing possession; the amount was one-time consideration in terms of the lease condition. In addition, the lessee has to pay 2.5% of the said amount as annual rent, which is subject to increase periodically. No doubt, the assessee argues that the annual rent is depressed, and does not reflect the market rent.
Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance made of royalty paid by the respondent to CAMI USA for distribution of software products in India without appreciating that the royalty had been paid on the amount of bad debts even where the software had not worked at all?”
The facts, as disclosed from the record, in a nut-shell are that the original applicant was initially recruited as Supporting Staff Grade-I on 25.7.1979 by the 1st respondent and subsequently promoted as Supporting Staff Grade-II on 4.10.1996. In the meanwhile, he acquired matriculation qualification in the year 1995 while in service.
The Transferor Companies are in existence since 1975. It was felt that it would be in the interest of the Transferee Company to merge the five Transferor Companies with the Transferee Company, and to enable the Promoter thereof to hold shares directly in the Transferee Company rather than indirectly. The object of the Scheme is not to avoid any tax. Even today the shares are owned/controlled by the same Promoter albeit through the Transferor Companies. Under the Scheme the only difference is that the Promoter will now hold shares directly in the Transferee Company. It is correctly submitted by the Transferee Company that there is nothing illegal or unlawful or dubious or colourful in the Scheme and the same is a perfectly legitimate scheme and permissible by law.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Talkies (refer to supra) clearly shows that in absence of rejection of books of account maintained by the assessee in respect of cost of construction, no addition on estimate basis can be made. In the present case, a perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the books of account in respect of cost of construction of the lodge, Dhruva Tara has not been rejected. In the circumstances, we are of the view that in view of principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Talkies (refer to supra), no addition is called for in the hands of the assessee. In the circumstances, the addition of Rs. 1 lakh as confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stands deleted.
In terms of the proviso to Section 147of the said Act the jurisdiction to reopen assessments already completed under Section 143(3) of the said Act, after the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year can only be exercised on the cumulative satisfaction of two conditions precedent as under: 1. There must be a reasonable belief on the part of the officer that income has escaped assessment; and 2. That there must be a failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.
We do not think that such can be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the case under consideration it stands established that the issue resulting in the determination of higher income u/s 143(3) was clearly debatable. Respectfully following the ratio of the above judgments which have held that penalty is not imposable on debatable issues or claims/deductions disallowed on account of varying legal interpretations it is held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not imposable in the present case. Accordingly the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.01.2009 imposing the penalty of Rs. 520969/- is quashed.
It appears that all facts were available on record and according to the respondents was only erroneously granted. This is a clear case of review of an order. The application of law or interpretation of a statue leading to a particular conclusion cannot lead to a conclusion that tax has escaped assessment for this would then certainly amount to review of an order which is not permitted unless so specified in a statue.
