The facts of the case are that assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of vacuum insulated tanks, cold convertor systems, atmospheric vaporizers and cryo containers, etc. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative for the Revenue submitted that penalty has been levied on the addition amounting to Rs.5,04,326. He submitted that expenditure was claimed as business expenditure under the head “Staff and labour training expenses” incurred on the sponsorship of advance education of the son of the managing director for higher studies at abroad.
Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption. The deduction under section 10A has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. This is anterior to the application of the provisions of section 72 which deals with the carry forward and set off of business losses. A distinction has been made by the Legislature while incorporating the provisions of Chapter VI-A. Section 80A(1) stipulates that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Chapter, the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U. Section 80B(5) defines for the purposes of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter. Therefore, the deduction under section 10A has to be given at the stage when the profits and gains of business are computed in the first instance.
The dispute is regarding disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under section 14A of the Act. Under the said provisions, the disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income is required to be computed as per Rule 8D. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 have held that Rule 8D is applicable only from assessment year 2008-09 and in respect of prior years, it was held that disallowance had to be made on a reasonable basis after hearing the assessee. In this case, CIT(A) directed the AO to make disallowance as per Rule 8D which is not correct. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for necessary examination in the light of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. (supra) and for passing a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
It is seen that in the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made payments towards purchase of land in the Devanahalli taluk of Bangalore District out of which sums amounting to Rs. 87,92,635 were found to have been paid in cash in contravention of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee’s explanation in letter dated December 18, 2008, that the payments were made at places which were not served by any banking facilities was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for the reason that Devanahalli taluk is a well developed suburb of Bangalore having a large number of banks and the recipients of the consideration were residing in that area and some of them were in receipt of government compensation for land acquisition and had accounts and deposits in such banks.
In the instant case also services were provided by the assessee outside India and for this business the services of non-residents were utilized to whom technical fee in question was paid. No good reason could be shown by the DR as to why the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal is not applicable in the instant case and why the said decision should not be followed in the instant case. We, therefore, following the above decision, hold that the services of non-residents to whom the technical fee of Rs. 74,63,768/- was paid by the assessee were utilized for the business which was carried out outside India for earning income from a source outside India. Therefore, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
The dispute is regarding allowability of claim of bad debt not made in the return of income. The claim had been made before AO only during assessment proceedings which had not been allowed following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) in which it has been held that any claim before the AO has to be made by way of filing revised return if not made in the original return. CIT(A) has therefore, upheld the order of AO. It may however be noted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (I) Ltd. was regarding claim to be made before the AO.
In our considered opinion, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is nothing but mere change of opinion. The issues which have already been considered in the original assessment cannot be reappreciated in reassessment proceedings under the garb of income escaping assessment. If the Assessing Officer has not given any finding after considering the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the income had escaped assessment on account of concealment of income of the assessee.
The primary condition for rejecting the book results as laid down under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is that the Assessing Officer should be satisfied that the books of account maintained by the assessee are not complete and correct. As can be seen from the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has merely proceeded on a surmise that the profits of the assessee are sought to be reduced by selling its products to M/s. Pragathi Automation P. Ltd., the assessee’s sister-concern at a lesser price.
The assessee AOP in the present case has been assessed as AOP and found to have fulfilled the condition laid down in section 80 IB(10) and has been held to be eligible for such deduction. The quantum of deduction under section 80 IB (10) will depend on the income earned from eligible project. The quantum of deduction will not depend upon the mode of distribution of shares amongst the members of AOP as income of AOP is taxable at maximum marginal rate.
In a case where assessee voluntarily deducted tax and claimed refund directly, grant of interest under section 244A may not arise and the Board Circulars on this issue are applicable, whereas in a case where AO demand the tax / interest consequent to an order under section 195/201 or 201A, and the refund arose consequent to the orders of the CIT (A)/ITAT, then interest under section 244A has to be granted. In the present case, the assessee has been found entitled to refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act and section 244A provides for payment of interest on the amount of refund which becomes due to assessee under the Act. We have no doubt in our mind to hold that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 244A.
