Terms of the agreement clearly prove that Xennia had supplied the technology to the assessee. Not only the assessee was using it, it had the right over the Intellectual Property also. Agreement entered in to by the assessee-company allowed it ‘to file patent application, design application or any such application for intellectual property rights arising out of foreground IP’.
If we consider the facts of the case as stated above that neither the Revenue authorities nor the assessee has brought on record any material or evidence in support of the determination of annual value of properties, however, the assessee has furnished evidence in respect of annual value determined by municipal/local authority, Agra Nagar Nigam in support of annual value of concerned properties.
Since the assessee’s operations are efficient enough to obtain more profits and since the receipts are at arm’s length and there is no passing of excess profits by the parent company (AE) to the assessee, the Assessing Officer’s action in restricting the profits is not correct. Also there is no reason to restore it to the Assessing Officer since there is nothing else to examine. Accordingly, grounds of the assessee are allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to treat the profits declared by the assessee as ordinary profits and allow deduction under section 10A, without any further adjustment.
Assessee eligible for S. 54EC benefit of Rs. 50 Lakh each made in two different financial years but within six months from transfer of capital asset. Only question that arises is whether proviso to Section 54EC(1) would limit the claim of exemption to Rs. 50 lakhs. Said proviso mentions that investment on which an assessee could claim exemption under Section 54EC(1) shall not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs during a financial year.
In initial years the assessee had lesser requirement of these spools as the business was in the process of being established and stabilized. The system of collecting these spools also had to be put in place and stabilized to ensure its supply on a sustained basis. The system adopted by the TPO to allocate indirect expenses on the basis of turnover in initial assessment years was not justified. There was nothing on record to suggest any indirect expenses for determining the ALP of export of spools. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in restricting the addition to Rs. 5,07,651 as there was no element of indirect cost involved.
(d) Companies having super normal profit may have to be examined further to determine the reason for the extra ordinary profits. (e) Companies whose employee or directors are involved in fraud should not be accepted as the financial results are not reliable. (f) Companies having the turnover of less than Rs. one crore or more than Rs.200 crores should not be taken as comparables.
As per the agreement, assessee was responsible for updation of patches of the software and provision of backup and recovery services in respect of data stored on the centralised server. The responsibility of the assessee is to maintain and upkeep of the centralised server owned by it. Assessee has not imparted any technical know-how, skill, process or technical plan or design and hence, in view of Art 12(3)(g), the amount received by the assessee cannot be taxed in India.
It is settled principles of law that in order to avail benefits under the beneficial provision, the conditions provided by the legislature has to be complied with. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in view of the mandatory provisions contained in section 139(1) r.w.s. 80A(5) of the Act it is mandatory for every cooperative society for claiming deduction u/s 80P to file the return of income and to make a claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act in the return itself. In view of the above discussion, if the return was not filed either u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or in pursuance of notice issued u/s 142(1) or u/s 148, the taxpayer is not entitled for any deduction under section 80P of the Act.
Income Tax is a code in itself and for levying taxes certain terms have been defined in a particular manner and they carry special meanings. Word ‘person’ is one among them. So, in our humble opinion, State Government is a person for purposes of collecting tax at sources as per the provisions of Sec 206C of the Act.
On going through the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it can be seen that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to deduction under sec.80IB of the Act since the assessee unit is located in an industrially back-ward State specified in VIII Schedule and is governed by the provisions of sub-sec. (iv) of Sec.80IB of the I.T. Act. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by analyzing the provisions of the Act held that the assessees,
