We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In terms of provisions of section 47 (xiv) of the Act I any transfer of a capital asset will not be regarded as transfer liable to capital gains tax, if the conditions under Clauses (a),'(b) & (c) of the said Section are complied with. Sub-clause(a) specifies that all assets and liabilities have to be transferred by the sole proprietory concern to the company.
The income attributable to the operations of developing/producing breeder seeds or hybrid germplasm or parent hybrid seed containing desired traits cannot be treated as agricultural income and should be treated as business income.
It depends on the facts of each transactions, whether the letting out of the property is incidental and subservient dominant object of selling the property or not. If the property has merely been let out b> the assessee then the same cannot be held to be exploitation of the property for commercial purpose in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Shambhu Investment (supra). We. therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AC) for fresh consideration in the light of aforementioned observation.
Thus we find, if the functional test for a plant enunciated by Apex Court and jurisdictional court in their decisions referred to supra is applied to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in holding that roads, flyovers bridges etc., constructed and owned by the assessee and utilised in its business of
If we agree with this submission of the Id. A.R that as the ultimate tax liability of the assessee together with its AE does not vary even if the lower price is charged inter se, and hence the exercise done by the TPO be held as fruitless, then the provisions of section 92 to 92F would become redundant. Since the provisions require the determination of the ALP in an international transaction between the associated enterprises, it is imperative to undergo this exercise so as to prevent any loss to the coffers of India kitty. We therefore, reject this submission made on behalf of the assessee as devoid of any merit.
On careful consideration of relevant facts, I am of the view that important fact stated by the assessee in his reply to penalty notice has not been considered in accordance with law. The revenue authority and the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings proceeded mainly on a presumption that the payment was made through account payee cheque, decided the issue against the assessee and the expenditure claimed was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. In the penalty proceedings, which admittedly are different and separate from the assessment proceedings, the assessee was entitled to render fresh explanation and accordingly detailed reply dated 8-11-2004 was filed before the AO. In the said reply it was emphasized t
. In view of the above decision, the company whose principal business is that of granting of loans and advances, may earn a comparatively high income from some other activity in a particular year, merely because the income/loss from share trading in the year under consideration is higher than the interest income,
Since in the case under consideration, the expenditure claimed by the assessee is revenue in nature, therefore, the same is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act and not u/s 35AB of the Act. The above view is supported by the fact that the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 introduced from the asst. yr. 1999- 2000 on wards,
In view of the above, the grievance of Pride Foramer against being treated as an agent of the expatriate personnel under section 163 of the Act is found to be of merit and it is accepted as such.
In fact, the assessee has borne part of the advertisement expenditure which was to be borne in full by the Indian franchises. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that section 92 is not applicable with regard to the advertisement expenditure.
