The issue involved in the present case is relating to the determination of arm’s length price in relation to the international transactions involving payment of royalty by the assessee company to its associated enterprises. As provided in section 92C of the Act, such arms’s length price is to be determined by one of the methods prescribed, which is found to be the most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as may be prescribed. The manner in which such most appropriate method is to be applied for determination of arm’s length price is prescribed in Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Section 2(14) defines ‘capital asset’ as property of any kind held by an assessee. The term ‘property’ encompasses in its ambit bundle of rights. This includes every conceivable species of valuable rights and interests. The right to dispose off a thing in every legal way, to possess it and to use and to exclude everyone from interfering with it, comes within the ambit of property. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing off a thing comes within the term of ‘property’. The assessee had perpetual right of possession of suite and was entitled to transfer the same by virtue of seventh covenant noted above. Therefore, long term advance booking by virtue of which assessee got right to possession was ‘capital asset’ within the definition of section 2(14) and, therefore, on transfer of the same long term capital gain accrued to the assessee and assessee was, accordingly, entitled for indexation of cost of acquisition.
The view of the Larger Bench that the assessee had to be directly engaged in developing, maintaining and operating the facility and that there had to be a complete development of the facility and not just a part of it is contrary to the law laid down in ABG Heavy Industries 322 ITR 323 (Bom). The High Court held that The assessee did not have to develop the entire project in order to qualify for a deduction under s. 80-IA. The Parliament did not legislate a condition impossible of compliance.
The sum paid was also not in the nature of compensation because there was no obligation on M/s Gillette Company USA, under any contract to compensate the assessee. Under these facts we do not find infirmity in the decision of the first appellate authority in treating the amount of Rs. 108.49 crores out of an aggregate addition of Rs. 118.49 crores made by the AO as capital receipt and hence not chargeable to tax. In this regard we also find support from the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR in the cases of Smartalk (P) Ltd. (supra) and General Electrodes & Equipment Ltd. (Supra) wherein under almost identical circumstances addition made has been deleted.
Moreover, in the subsequent year i.e 2008-09 & 2009-10 the cup method as adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its international transactions has not been disputed by the revenue. Further, when the relevant data are now available, as stated by the ld Sr counsel, then it is appropriate to determine the ALP by adopting the same method as it was accepted in the subsequent year.
The fact of approval of the payment by the RBI has been succinctly recorded by the TPO in his order as well. He still chose to propose adjustment in respect of full payment. In our considered opinion, when the rate of royalty payment and fee for drawings etc. has been approved or deemed to have been approved by the RBI, then such payment has to be considered at ALP.
We found that assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of B.D. Leasing and Finance Limited, (2013) 49(II) ITCL 148, wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271B for non-filing of tax audit report cannot be levied in view of the CBDT Circular No.9/2006 dated 10.10.2006, which provided that in case of electronic filing of return, tax audit report need not to be filed alongwith return.
Clause 4 of the agreement indicates that the Smt Shah surrendered the tenancy rights along with the property to the assessee. If that is true, where is the need for Smt Shah to be the signatory to the agreement in giving the property on monthly rent to the new tenants and why should there be a tripartite agreement? Letting off the impugned property becomes the matter for settlement between the landlord and the new tenant as per the terms and conditions of the land lord, which is not the case here.
In the books of account, assessee had made provision for doubtful debts for this amount. The matter is sub-judice before court or arbitration. This shows that the amount was not ascertained. It remained contingent at the relevant time. Moreover, it had been gone against assessee due to amendment in Act. The amendment made by inserting clause (i) in Explanation 1 to section 115JB by the Finance Act, 2009 with retrospective effect 1.4.2001, the amount set aside and provision for diminution in the value of an asset is to be added to arrive at the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. This empowers the Assessing Officer to add to income any amount debited in profit & loss account for provision of bad and doubtful debts.
There can be no concealment or non-disclosure, as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the IT return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax and therefore no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) could be levied. The words ‘in the course of any proceedings under this Act’ in Sec. 271(1)(c ) of the Act are prefaced by the satisfaction of the AO or the CIT(A).
