Assessee is a limited company. The Government of Gujarat floated Sale Tax Deferment Scheme. For facilitating the industrial units to avail such benefit of the Sale Tax Incentive Scheme in the State, pari passu charge was to be created in favour of the Sales Tax Department, as decided by the Government of Gujarat and as such deferred amount of sales tax was considered as a “deemed loan” and the present respondent acted as a nodal agency for the scheme.
The Commissioner after recording cogent reasons found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He was therefore, on facts of the case entitled to exercise revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. While doing so, he remanded the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for full inquiry and fresh consideration. He had not given any specific directions to consider the issue in particular manner. In any case, the Tribunal further clarified this issue in the impugned order as can be seen from the noted portion of the order itself.
Section 80G(5)(i)(b) provides the condition for exemption or rejection of the application for renewal, if the donation made to the institution or funds are not used by it directly or indirectly for the purpose of such business. In the present case the Commissioner did not record any such finding that the funds, which was earmarked and was kept in separate account in fixed deposit was not used by the respondent assessee directly or indirectly. Infact there was no occasion to misuse the funds as the hospital had not yet started and thus the plant and machinery could not be purchased from the grant, which was kept in fixed deposit.
Once the registration has been granted under section 12AA of the Act, the exemption under Section 11 cannot be withdrawn unless there is violation of provisions of Section 13 of the Act or the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act is cancelled. The Tribunal held that the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Pruthivi Trust [1980] 124 ITR 488 is distinguishable on facts as the Trust in that case was carrying out profit making activity without any authorisation in the Trust Deed.
In this case Tribunal was wrong in holding that if one profit level indicator of a comparable, out of a set of comparables, is lower than the profit level indicator of the taxpayer, then the transaction reported by the taxpayer is at an arm’s length price. The proviso to section 92C(2) is explicit that where more than one price is determined by most appropriate method, the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices. To this extent the appeal is allowed. However, as pointed out above, if this principle is applied to the comparables suggested by the assessee (which have not been rejected by the Transfer Pricing Officer), the arm’s length price suggested by the assessee would yet be acceptable in law. There shall be no orders as to costs.
In the instant case the dividend earned on shares by the respondent assessee is from its investments in shares out of the respondent-assessee’s own funds. Consequently, the question of invoking Section 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 to disallow expenditure would not arise.
Respondent assessee was interalia engaged in the business of execution of contracts for erection and commissioning of plants. The Assessing officer disallowed an amount of Rs.16.86 lacs paid by way of reimbursement to sister concerns for payment of salaries to their employees as they were deputed to the respondent assessee. This was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for failure to deduct tax. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing officer.
The factual matrix or the case is that the assessee had contracted with landlord to take a premise on lease for opening its branch though no formal agreement with the landlord was entered into. Based on the understanding, the landlord had started the construction of the premises as per the requirement of the assessee. Before the construction was completed the assessee came to know of the proposed construction of overbridge over the said property. The assessee was of the view that overbridge will cause hindrance to conduct the business and services.
In case of Ratanlall Murarka and others (supra), as already noted, Kerala High Court did hold that under section 179 of the Act not only the tax dues but also interest can be recovered from the director of a public company. This was on the basis that according to the Court, the company was liable for interest under section 220(2) of the Act.
Issue pertains to deduction claim by the assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act on development of a housing project. Revenue, however, holds a belief that the respondent-assessee had not developed the housing project on the ground that the land was not owned by the assessee. The Tribunal, however, held that as per the development agreement, the assessee had to incur and bear all expenses for development of the land. The assessee had the right to allot possession of the constructed units to the members of the housing project after developing the housing project. The Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Radhe Developers [2012] 341 ITR 403 in which this Court had upheld the decision of the Tribunal. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.
