It thus remains an undisputed fact that no addition has been made on the reasons recorded for reopening the completed assessment. Now, what is to be seen is as to whether, as contended by the assessee, since no addition has been made on the reasons recorded, no reasons for reopening the completed assessment survive and, consequently, the completed assessment could not have been reopened, or whether in spite of no addition having been made qua the reasons recorded, those reasons still survive and the reopening on the basis of those reasons is in order, as maintained by the department.
The assessee had submitted that direct salary cost should be considered and indirect overhead cost should not be considered as concerned employees performed insignificant role for the credit monitoring assistance done for the overseas associate enterprises. However, it is true that no fresh ECB loans have been granted during the year under consideration, but services indeed have been rendered by the assessee to its overseas entities.
Entire nature of work comes squarely within the realm of ‘carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract’ as stipulated in section 194C. ‘Carrying out any work’ has a very wide import, which includes within its ambit not only simply works contract but also all kind of work, which a person carries out in pursuance of a contract.
In the present case, the provisions of sec.74(1) as amended w.e.f. 1.4.2003 have been relied upon by the revenue authorities to disallow the assessee’s claim for set off of long-term capital loss relating to AY 2001-02 against short-term capital gain of the year under consideration and as already noted by us, the plain grammatical construction of the language of sec.74(1) as amended w.e.f. 1.4.2003 makes it clear that the same are applicable and deal with carry forward and set off of loss under the head “capital gain” incurred in AY 2003-04 and subsequent years. The right accrued to the assessee by virtue of sec.74(1) as it stood prior to the amendment made w.e.f.1.4.2003 thus has not been taken away either expressly by the provisions of sec. 74(1) as amended w.e.f. 1.4.2003 or even by implication.
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that income in this case is chargeable u/s. 44D read with section 115A of the Act. However, I also note that tribunal in earlier round remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to give the finding as to whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under DTAA between the India and UAE.
Accrual of income is a well-known concept of taxation jurisprudence. It is a fact that assessee is following the Mercantile system of accounting and as per the established principles of that system, whatever accrues to an assessee in a particular AY has to be offered for taxation for that particular year. In our opinion the concept of real income or no real income can never be a concept which can work if it is at variance with the statutory provisions.
Tribunal held that the payment made by assessee to a foreign company for the services rendered by it for uploading and display of the banner advertisement on its portal was in the nature of business profit and not royalty and such payment was not chargeable to tax in India as the recipient has no PE in India and, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from the payment for such services and the same cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax.
It is undisputed that the Revenue is aggrieved against the allowability of expenditure incurred in respect of earning dividend and interest income liable to tax at special rate u/s 115A, against the income chargeable to tax at normal rate. It is not a case and cannot be that such dividend and interest income are not at all chargeable to tax. The contention which has been made is that the expenses incurred by the assessee in respect of income liable to tax at special rate u/s 115A should not be allowed as deduction against the income chargeable to tax at normal rate.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra) and also by the ITAT, Madras Bench in 33 TTJ 466 (supra), we hold that the assessee will be entitled for deduction u/s 54F for the flat purchased in the name of his daughter subject to the restrictions under the proviso to section 54F(1) of the Act.
The provisions of TDS were introduced in the statute so that tax is collected by Revenue at source on certain types of income. In other words, it is the income which determines the extent or amount of tax to be deducted at source. Income sought to be taxed by taxing statutes is always the real income. In the instant case, it is clear that the lease rent for the relevant period was fixed at Rs. 6 Crores per annum.
