Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of John D’Souza (supra) has also held that any payment for not carrying out any activity or for refraining from carrying out activity in relation to business which otherwise was being allowed to be carried out by the assessee, by the erstwhile owner was assessable u/s. 28(va), squarely applies. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court further held that question of capital gains did not arise as the assessee was not owner of any asset in the first place and there is no transfer of such alleged capital asset during the previous year.
While deciding Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 6747/M/2011, this Bench had the occasion to consider the Circular issued by CBDT being Circular No. 8/2005 dt. 29.8.2005 wherein this Bench has held that employer/employee relationship is a pre-requisite for the levy of FBT. Rationale for introduction of FBT is that it is difficult to isolate the “personal element” if the benefits are collectively enjoyed by the people which means that the provisions of FBT will be applicable only in respect of those expenses which contain or atleast are likely to contain an element of personal benefit to employees. We do not find any such thing present on the facts of the present case. The subscription amount has been paid as per contractual agreement between the assessee and M/s. Tata Sons Ltd. The invoice raised by M/s. Tata Sons Ltd. is for the services provided for it. As no employer/employee relationship exists between the assessee and M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., we agree with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that subscription payment deserves to be kept outside the purview of FBT.
From the above it is clear that unabsorbed depreciation for the block of Assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02 which could not have been set off earlier, cannot be allowed to be set off now. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to only allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation which is outside the block of Assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02.
On a plain reading of the provisions of section 54F of the Act, we do not find anything therein to suggest that the new residential house acquired should be situated in India. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (supra) has held that introducing a word which is not there into a section amounts to legislating when Parliament has not used these words in the said section.
It is a well settled law that when two different views of the different jurisdictional High Courts are available, the decision favourable to the assessee is to b03e followed. The hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) has held that (page 195) “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is a well-accepted rule of constructions recognized by this court in several of its decisions”. Therefore, in view of the above, the Tribunal has been following the judgment of the hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) in various cases holding that exemption under section 10B is to be allowed without setting off brought forward unabsorbed loss and depreciation from earlier assessment year or the current assessment year. A similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the following cases as well :
We observe that the assessee can either captively consume the electricity generated or can sell the same to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Rs. 2.70 per unit. The assessee is refrained from directly selling generated electricity to the consumers. The assessee has no other option but to sell the electricity generated to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at the predetermined rates.
The above factual matrix of the case nowhere proves that the assessee had either concealed the income or furnished any inaccurate particulars. The very fact that it had duly mentioned the consideration in the year of receipt itself proves its bona fides. In this regard, we fortify our opinion from the hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Metal Rolling Works Ltd. (supra).
Admittedly the assessee is involved in the manufacturing activity also and marketing its own products i.e. iron powder. Apart from that, the assessee is importing iron product and marketing the same that is a trading activity. Nothing has been brought out on record by the DRP as well as the TPO that the assessee has to incur cost for the sales achieved by the parent company as in the case of its own marketing.
From the decision of the hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 192 (Delhi) it is clear that ‘business or commercial rights of similar nature’ are not manufactured or produced over-night, but are brought into existence by experience and reputation. The non-compete fee is outcome of an agreement entered into between two parties.
AO is directed to give an opportunity to assessee for cross examining persons whose statements are used against assessee. The statements have been recorded from the Indian personnel and might have been examined with reference to the Indian Company, however, assessee’s contention that being a foreign company, it has a right to cross examine the persons who gave statements cannot be denied. It is already on record that assessee has made the request before AO as well as the DRP on this issue. Therefore, we direct AO to allow the assessee to cross examine the individuals whose statements were recorded and were relied upon by the Revenue so that assessee can contest/justify/accept the statements.
