It has further been the contention of the revenue that the amendments vide Finance Act 2010, inserting mutually exclusionary clauses in s. 44BB and s.44DA are clarificatory, and hence are retrospective in operation, w.e.f. AY 2004-05. We find that this contention is not at all correct as the said provision of the Act cannot be said to be clarificatory and hence retrospective in operation. In this regard in the case of CGG Veritas Services SA (supra) comes to the rescue of the assessee. Furthermore, the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee itself in Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2010, excluding the application of Section 44BB in cases where Section 44DA applies, is prospective and applies from assessment year 2011-12.
The operation theatre and surgical are highly technical equipments for the operation of the persons. Therefore, they cannot be maintained in a routine or normal manner, but a technical person is required for maintenance of such equipments. Similar is the case with RO system, CT scan machine, MRI machine, lift and sterlisation and medical equipments. Therefore, these contracts cannot be the contracts in a routine or normal manner but for which technical service has been rendered and provisions of section 194J, read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) are attracted.
The appellant had raised interest bearing loan from Reliance Capital Ltd. The said Loan had been utilized by the appellant for the purchase of shares and also for making capital contribution to M/s Shreenath Enterprises in which the appellant was a partner. Thus, to the extent the interest bearing loan has been used for making contribution, there is a direct nexus between the loan obtained from Reliance Capital Ltd. and contribution made to the partnership firm.
Finance Act, 2012 has amended the provisions of sec. 92CA of the Act retrospectively to empower the TPO to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions noticed by him in the course of proceedings before him, even if said transaction was not reported by the assessing officer.
There is no need to capitalize the upfront fee for term loan in connection with the transfer of the loans from one bank to another against prepayment penalty charges paid to the existing banks to migrate from a costly 15% p.a. loan to chaper 10% p.a. loan offered by another bank.
It was held that the ‘gross amount’ royalty under the India-US DTAA includes not only the actual payment by way of royalty but also the tax withheld by the payer which is borne by him and paid to Central Government on behalf of the payee as agreed between the parties. In short, the ITAT held that the royalty has to be paid on the grossed up amount. ITAT Delhi also held that royalty is taxable on receipt basis irrespective of the system of accounting adopted by the parties.
In the instant case, the liability to pay commission Rs. 2,94,701/- has arisen by virtue of sales in the financial year 2004-05 relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. The realization of sale amount in the next financial year will not make much difference as the liability to pay commission had crystallized in the financial year 2004-05 itself after sale. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground raised by the assessee.
The assessee’s argument of having established his bona fides in view of the money being deposited in his regular bank account would also be to no avail. Does the assessee mean to imply that he has some other unaccounted bank accounts as well, in which the amount could have been deposited? To pay the tax, legitimately due, and to recover the same, is the bounded duty of the citizen and the State respectively. In view of the foregoing, the application of section 69A is confirmed in the instant case by the revenue and, accordingly, the assessee’s ground is dismissed.
The assessee entered into a composite contract with ONGC to provide complete Mud Engineering Services which have been termed as ‘Mud Services & supply Mud Chemicals’ to ONGC in the contract. Both the services as well as the material required to provide such services is a composite and integral part of the contract. The assessee specialized in providing these services along with specialized chemicals required for the purpose. Thus, both these aspects are composite and cannot be segregated in part. This was a case of composite work contract which cannot be considered in parts for the purpose of taxation. The assessee has opted for working out the taxable income as per the provisions of section 44BB.
Tribunal has held that a payment which has direct link and immediate nexus with the trading liability being connected with the delayed purchase payments will not fall within the category of interest as defined in section 2(28A). The payment made by the assessee in the present appeal being of similar nature also cannot be termed as interest as defined under section 2(28A).
