The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is a Central Act having legal sanctity. It has got overriding effect on any other provisions of any other Act except the provisions of FERA 1973 and Urban Land (Ceiling Act & Regulation) Act, 1976. Therefore, the directions of the BIFR have to be honoured and failure of such directions will bring legal disharmony.
The applicant’s counsel submitted that an item of income can be said to have been dealt with in an article of the Treaty only if it defines its scope as well as allocates the right to tax such income between the two Contracting States. Mere exclusion of shipping business profits from article 7 does not amount to dealing with that item of income. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Allocation of taxing right to the source State can well be done by such a process of exclusion. There is no particular manner or methodology of achieving that result.
As regards the applicability of section 14A, it was submitted that the only income by way of dividend on shares was exempt from tax in respect of securities notified for the purpose of section 10(23G). It was submitted that since the said shares were also capable of generating other income in the form of short term capital gain, income from stock lending, income by way of fees for providing of shares, as collateral etc., and it was not a case wherein the borrowed funds were exclusively utilized for making investment in order to earn the exempt dividend income. It was contended that the premium paid on redemption of premium notes, therefore, could not be considered as expenditure incurred in relation to income which did not form part of total income of the assessee companies so as to attract the provisions of section 14A.
Profitability if considered without considering the positive deviations would lead to impossible profitability positions, which is not what is contemplated under the provisions of 92C. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the ALP by taking into consideration both the net difference on the sale from the AE and purchase from the AE. The Assessing Officer may look into the fact as to the margins of the profits in regard to the transactions done by the assessee with its AE, as also the non-AE transactions and then compute the adjustment of ALP, if any.
In the instant case The CIT has not indicated the nature of information not furnished and without considering the documents filed by the applicant along with applications for registration u/s 12AA/80G has rejected assessee’s claim solely on the ground that applicant could not file most of the informations call for. We find force in the argument of ld. counsel that CIT failed to consider the claim of the applicant on merit, without considering the record and affording opportunity of being heard to the applicant on alleged non compliance. In the interest of natural justice we deem it fit and proper to restore the issues in question i.e. registration u/s 12AA/80G, back to the file of CIT for decision afresh on merit in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. We order accordingly.
Section 54EC clearly states that the investment in specified bond is to be made “within a period of six months after the date of such transfer. The intention of the legislature is clear. It was not desired by them to give the exemption u/s 54EC even investment made before the transfer of the long term capital assets. There is no direct case law of Section 54EC for claiming of exemption even investment made before, has been brought in the knowledge of the Bench.
Since the assessee failed to establish nexus of use of borrowed funds for the purpose of business to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, there is no escape from the finding that interest being paid by the assessee to the extent the amounts are diverted to sister concerns or other persons on interest free basis, are to be disallowed.
In our considered view, this is a very important aspect of the matter inasmuch as if the assessee has incurred a loss on its entire project, whether onshore or offshore, the mere fact that the assessee has incurred a loss on onshore activities cannot be reason enough to show, or even indicate, that the value of the onshore activities was deliberately kept at a lower amount to avoid taxability in India. Of course, it could still make commercial sense that the offshore supplies are made at loss, as long as these supplies are at less than incremental costs i.e. marginal costs of offshore supplies, and thus overall losses of the assessee are minimized.
The facts of the present case are similar only in the case in I.T.A. No.350/Del/.2009 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi Bench ‘D’ has dealt with the similar issue which was at ground No.3 of the appeal. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and had remitted back file to the office of Assessing Officer for consideration of claim of assessee u/s 80IB. While deciding the matter, the Hon’ble Tribunal had considered various judicial pronouncements in which it was held that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. If an assessee under a mistake, misconception or not being properly instructed is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes are collected.
Assessee, on partition of the joint family, had received the balance capital of the family in the real estate business comprising various assets, which were in the nature of stock-in-trade and it cannot be considered that the various assets or properties received by the assessee on partition are capital assets and these capital assets were converted into stock-in-trade of the real estate when the assessee continued to carry on the business of the erstwhile joint family.
