The issue whether a particular let out is business or earning rental income by the owner of the premises has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, so far as the rental income for the let out premises owned by the assessee is concerned, the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in various decisions and it has been held that the income realized by such owner by way of rental income from a building, whether commercial building or residential, is assessable under the head ‘income from house property’.
The condition precedent for making the reference by invoking the provisions of Section 142A thus is that there should be something on record to show that the assessee in first place has made such investment outside the books or the investment so made by him is not fully disclosed in the books of account and once this condition is satisfied, the quantum of such investment made can be ascertained by the Assessing Officer by making reference u/s 142A in order to make the addition u/s 69 or 69B, whichever is applicable.
It was held that what is covered u/s.44C is the expenditure that is common in nature meaning thereby that the benefit of the said expenditure is derived both by the Head Office and the Branch. It was held that payment of salary made in the case of the assessee was to expatriate employees who were working actually with the assessee in India though the payment was made to them by the Head Office outside India. It was held that the expenditure incurred on such payment thus was incurred exclusively for the branch in India and the same was not covered within the purview of sec.44C.
It can be observed from the earlier parts of the TPO’s order that he confined himself only to IT/ITES for the purposes of bench marking. In such a case, there could have been no question of the TPO embarking upon the figures in relation to non-IT/ITES segments of some of the comparable cases as chosen by him. Apart from making a general statement that the TPO also considered the figures from non-IT/ITES segments in some of the comparable cases, no material has been placed on record to substantiate this argument.
The High Court has failed to appreciate that while charging interest from the assessees, the Department first adjusts the amount paid towards interest so that the principal amount of tax payable remain outstanding and they are entitled to charge interest till the entire outstanding is paid. But when it comes to granting of interest on refund of taxes, the refunds are first adjusted towards the taxes and then the balance towards interest. Hence, as per the stand that the Department takes they are liable to pay interest only up to the date of refund of tax while they take the benefit of assessees funds by delaying the payment of interest on refunds without incurring any further liability to pay interest,. This stand taken by the respondents is discriminatory in natrure and thereby causing great prejudice to the lakhs and lakhs of assessees.
Reimbursement of custom duty paid by the assessee could not form part of amount for the purpose of deemed profits u/s 44BB unlike the other amounts received towards reimbursement. Following the view in this decision, Mumbai Bench in their decision in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines(supra)held that service tax being a statutory liability, would not involve any element of profit and accordingly, the same could not be included in the total receipts for determining the presumptive income.
The other ground raised by the revenue that the assessee has not registered under A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and hence the assessee is a non charitable one, is an argument to be admitted only to be rejected. The provisions of Sections 2(15), 11 to 13 are very clear and self contained code in respect of institutions which are considered as charitable in nature and the exemptions that these institutions are eligible for under the Income tax Act.
Indisputably, certain discrepancies crept in while furnishing the information requisitioned by the AO from the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10 lacs from M/s Melco Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 5 lacs from M/s Poonam Corporation Ltd. towards share application money vis-à-vis information obtained by the AO from the aforesaid two companies u/s 133(6) of the Act.
It was the submission by the ld. AR that the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the IT Act on 23.01.2012 had not mentioned which order was erroneous nor had he mentioned the error in the assessment order. It was the submission that the show cause notice did not show as to how and what was the issue in which order the said issue arose which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Test of residence will be determined on the basis of number of days of stay in India and not by the interpretation adopted by the lower authorities in this case. It has not been disputed by the revenue that the number of days of the stay of assessee in India are less than 182 days. In these facts and circumstances the assessee’s arguments on this issue deserve to be upheld.
