Registration granted under section 12A, on 12th February 1996, and the benefits flowing therefrom, cannot be extended to the amended objects of the society unless the DIT examines the same and comes to a conclusion that the registration under section 12A, can be extended to the revised objects, memorandum and by-laws. It would be illogical to hold that once an institution is registered under section 12A, no matter whatever may be the changes in the objects, rules and regulations, for any number of times, the institution should be given the benefit of section 11 to 13 of the Act, in view of the original registration granted under section 12A.
The provisions of section 163 of the Act do not require that, the liability of the non-resident to pay tax should be established before initiating proceedings under section 163 of the Act on a person to treat it as the agent or representative assessee of the non-resident. The purpose of section 163 of the Act was to enable revenue authorities to proceed and impose a vicarious liability on a person regarded as agent, in an event when income was found to be taxable in the hands of the non-resident.
In this case has not rejected the books results of the assessee, nor has given any specific reasoning why the GP rate adopted by the assessee should be disturbed. Assessee has shown GP rate 24.54%. 20.53% GP was accepted by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in earlier years. Thus, nothing has been brought on record to prove lacunae in the assessee’s books of accounts, neither any reason has been stated why the GP rate should be disturbed and GP should be estimated at 30%. We find that there is no cogent basis in the Assessing Officer’s decision in making the addition in this case. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has taken a right view in the matter which does not need any interference on our part. Accordingly, we uphold the same.
It is found that surrender was made subject to no penalty vide letter of the assessee filed before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which clearly indicate that surrender was being made with a condition that no penal action will be made and to avoid further litigation and to buy peace and jurisdictional High Court decisions in the case of CIT v. Saran Khandsari Sugar Works [2000] 246 ITR 216/[2002] 120 Taxman 319 (All.) and CIT v. Mansa Ram & Sons [1977] 106 ITR 307 (All.) were in favour of the assessee and Commissioner (Appeals) has followed these decisions while deleting the impugned penalty. Moreover, department has not been able to bring on record any contrary superior Courts decisions in this regard. Therefore, there is no valid ground to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is upheld and appeal of the department is dismissed being devoid of any merit. As a result, the appeal of the department is dismissed.
In this case, M/s Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd , a tax resident of UK, was denied the benefit of setting off of the business loss from sale of shares against the income from other sources by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on the ground that the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India as per Article 5 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement . The Honourable Mumbai Tribunal observed that the assessee chose to be ruled by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not DTAA. Thus, the AO was not justified in directing that the business loss should be considered as per provisions of DTAA and therefore taxing the income from other sources without allowing its set off against the business loss.
Living allowance paid in addition to the regular salaries and benefits in India to the employees of Indian Company who are temporarily deployed in US will be exempt from tax. The deputation agreement between the taxpayers and the Indian Company clearly states that the additional compensation in the US has been paid in lump sum without any reference to meet personal expenses at the place where the duties of office or employment were to be performed. The additional compensation received by the taxpayers was in the form of a special allowance or benefit.
Assessee had acquired the business and also earned income out of the said transaction by cost plus basis. Thus, it can be seen that the assessee has not encountered the risk of having a single customer, whereas the same cannot be said as regards the comparables. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, the comparables were dealing in open market and therefore, they were prone to the marketing and technical risks. They would have incurred certain expenditure on marketing services and also to safeguard the technical use by them.
The Tribunal observed that the commission paid was disallowed by invoking provisions under Section 36(1)(ii) and not by invoking Section 40A(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. This implies that the AO had not disputed the services rendered by Renu Munjal but he was of the opinion that dividend had been paid in the garb of commission because it actually reduced the corpus available for distribution as dividend. Section 36(1 )(ii) of the Act had been incorporated to check, inter-alia, private companies from avoiding tax by distributing their profits to their members (showing them to be their employees) by way of commission and not by way of dividend. The AO was not correct in holding that the corpus for paying the dividend had reduced as it does not reflect the correct legal position with reference to section 36(1 )(ii) of the Act.
Reference was made to the decisions of Apex Court rendered in the case of M.P. Electricity Board 35 STC 188 (sic). In this case it was held that electricity is goods within the meaning of section 2(3) of Central Province and Virar Sales-tax Act. This decision was rendered in the context of the language of a particular statute. As such this meaning cannot be extended to the facts of the present case
Agreement between the assessee and the Non Resident is only for rendering services which cannot be considered as technical services and as there is no PE to the said non resident in India, the amount does not accrue or arise in India and further as there is no need for deducting the amount under section 195, there is no violation of provisions of section 195 and accordingly the same cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia).
