Regarding the treatment of Arranger fees as fees for technical services, we find that the ld. CIT(A) had treated it to be in the nature of service fee for managing and arranging the finance and, hence, it is the consideration for rendering managerial and consultancy services.
Since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, the expenses of earlier year cannot be allowed in the present year because the assessee had not been able to furnish any evidence to show that the above expenses have crystallized in the present year.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was engaged in the business of dealing in shares & securities and has incurred loss from dealing in derivatives (shares futures). It is not the case of the AO that the share futures in which the assessee was dealing were not recorded in recognized Stock Exchange, the loss incurred by the assessee was also not disputed by the AO.
It is only when payments are made ‘in pursuance of a contract’ that the provisions of section 194C come to into play. The contract may be oral or written, express or implied but there must be a contract nevertheless. In the present case, however, the payment is on account of legal obligation under section 24(1) of the Punjab water Supply & Sewerage Board Act 1976
The main issue in both the years relates to whether transaction made in normal course of business can be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2 (22) (e) of the act. The another issue besides the issue above in AY 2007-08 is addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit.
As regards, second issue CIT(A) has rightly adopted the peak credit theory by considering the fact that that there was only rotation of overdraft funds whereby the funds advanced on earlier dates were received back subsequently and there were no fresh deposits.
In our conclusion, neither the payment of license fees nor the management charges, falls within the ambit and purview of section 44C and, accordingly, the nature of adjustment to the total income for the purpose of disallowance is not required. Thus it is held that license fees and management charges do not fall in the nature of head office expenses u/s.
In the present facts of the Case there are three vital issues in which the Hon’ble Tribunal held that expenses like Telephone expenses, Diwali Expenses, Travelling Expenses, Vehicle Running, Event management Expenses
Exchange rate fluctuation arises out of and is directly related to the sale transaction involving the export of goods of the industrial undertaking and, therefore, difference on account of exchange rate fluctuation is entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act. This ground of appeal is allowed.
Whether expenses incurred for maintaining corporate entity & expenditure for day to day functioning of the company are allowable expenses u/s 37 even when no business activity was carried out by the assessee? Whether claim of set off of brought forward losses depreciation brought forward from earlier years should have been allowed?
