The taxpayers have deposited the amount in the fixed deposit in State Bank of Travancore, Pettah Branch, Trivandrum. The amount was not deposited in the capital gain bond. The claim of the taxpayers before this Tribunal is that the money was intended to be deposited in the capital gain bond. However, the bank deposited the amount in the fixed deposit. We are unable to accept the claim of the taxpayers. The legislature has framed the scheme for the purpose of giving exemption from the capital gain tax by asking the taxpayer to deposit the amount in the capital gain bond scheme. Therefore, if the taxpayer wants to take benefit of the scheme the money has to be deposited in the capital gain bond. Deposit of money in the fixed deposit cannot be construed as deposit in the capital gain bond. If at all there was any negligence on the part of the bank then it is open to the taxpayer to claim damages against the bank for the negligence, if any, committed by the officials of the bank. However, under the Income-tax Act, since the money was not deposited in the capital gain bond, the taxpayers are not eligible for exemption at all. Therefore, the orders of lower authorities are confirmed.
Amounts whether employees’ contribution or the employer’s contribution are not being shown as payable as on the last date of the Assessment Year cannot be brought to tax if the same has been paid before the due date of filing of the return.
In view of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi), the consideration for transfer of all or any rights in respect of any copyright, including copyright for films and videotapes, used in connection with television or tapes, would fall within the definition of ‘royalty’. What is excluded are consideration for sale, distribution and exhibition of cinematographic films.
A literal reading of sec. 195A implies that the income should be increased at the rates in force for the financial years and not the rates at which the tax is to be withheld by the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology (cited Supra) has held that the meaning and effect has to be given to the expression used in the section and while interpreting a section, one has to give weightage to every word used in that section.
Coming to the applicability of most appropriate method, both the parties have agreed that TNMM Method should be most appropriate method for benchmarking the ALP. The contention of learned CITDR is that before the TPO, even though this plea of applicability of TNMM Method was taken by the assessee by way of corroborated method, has neither considered the same nor examined it properly.
In the instant case, while referring to the proviso in the newly inserted provisions of section 201(3) introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1-4-2010, the Assessing Officer concluded that he was competent to pass such orders for the aforesaid financial years at any time on or before 31-3-2011 while the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn. [2008] 305 ITR 137and CIT v. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 230 (Delhi) held that the order dated 27-4-2010 passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation.
As regards the method to be adopted for comparability analysis, the contention of the revenue that CUP is the most appropriate method in the facts and circumstances of the case especially when internal comparables are available for the comparability analysis, has to be accepted. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the action of the Assessing Officer/TPO in adopting CUP method for comparability analysis instead of TNMM applied by the assessee.
In the instant case, the assessee-trust is carrying on various activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business and rendering its services for the purpose of trade, commerce and business, because it is charging huge fees on account of various facts. No doubt, the assessee has given some explanation for charging fees by stating that it is charging fees as per rules framed by the Punjab Local Bodies Govt., which is clearly the admission by it that it is doing activities not for charitable purpose but for business purpose only.
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that surrendered income during the survey has to be assessed separately as deemed income and set off of losses u/s 70 & 71 was not possible against such income.
We find that there is no reason whatsoever set out in the show cause notice as to why the Commissioner was of the view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Unless the Commissioner specifically sets out such reasons in the show cause notice, and hears the assessee on the same, it is not open to him to exercise his revision powers under section 263 of the Act.
