The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Limited v CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 was considering a case where the assessee had deposited its funds not immediately required by it on short term deposits with banks. The interest received on such deposits was offered by the assessee itself for tax and the assessment was completed on that basis.
The contention of the assessee that return of income in electronic form was not to accompany the report in Form 3 CEB is not correct. The assessee was required to file the report under section 92E, read with rule 10E, before the specified date i.e., the due date for filing of the return.
It is not pointed out as to how the expenses incurred are excessive or unreasonable therefore, such expenditure can be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40(A)(2) of the Act. In view of this matter, we do not find any infirmity into the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Sections 50 & 50C operate in two different fields and if the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority is accepted by the purchaser/seller there cannot be any variation for limited purposes of computing the consideration received, under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The TPO while rejecting the idle capacity, however, did not discuss anything about the arms length margin fixed at 11.96 per cent. This indicates that assessee’s TP study has not been considered by the TPO. The assessee has selected ten comparable companies and summary of net cost + margin varies from -6.04 per cent to 19.06 per cent.
Whether this agreed addition is to be added while calculating book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Section 115JB provides that where in the case of an assessee being a Company, the income tax payable on total income as computed under this Act is less than 10% (applicable in the impugned Assessment Year) of its book profit, such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee.
The Explanation to section 92(1) of the Act clarifies that the allowance for any expense or interest arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the ALP and therefore the disallowance is made under section 92(1) and not under section 40A(2) of the Act.
As per Explanation 7; no penalty is leviable if the assessee proves that the price charged or paid in such transaction was computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 92C and in the manner prescribed under section in good faith and with due diligence.
Having been served with a legal notice for the levy of penalty u/s. 271B, it was incumbent on the assessee to cause to comply with the provision, at least for the second year and, in any case, seek legal opinion in its respect. Rather, it could have, on its own, requested the AO not levy the penalty for that year (i.e., A.Y. 2006-07), explaining that the non-audit of its accounts u/s. 44AB stood caused only due to its ignorance of law,
In so far as the DTAA between India and Canada is concerned, it is observed that article 12(4) thereof gives the definition of the term fees for include services while article 12(5)(a) provides that notwithstanding the said definition given in article 12(4), fees for included services does not include amount paid for services that are ancillary and subsidiary as well as inextricably and essentially linked, to the sale of property.
