In this case there is nothing in the reasons to indicate that there is an escapement of income, but, at the most, need to verify that the reasons of discrepancy between income from profession as per return of income vis-à-vis as per the certificates of tax deduction at source. A variation in these two figures does not necessarily lead to escapement of income,
The TPO has to work out the ALP of the international transaction by applying the methods recognized under the Act. He is not competent to hold that the expenditure in question has not been incurred by the assessee or that the assessee has not derived any benefits for the payment made by the assessee and consequently, he cannot consider the ALP as NIL.
U/s 9(1)(vi)(c) royalty payable by a person who is a non-resident is deemed to arise in India where the royalty is payable in respect of any right etc utilised for the purposes of a business carried on by such person in India or for the purposes of earning any income from any source in India. Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is a deeming provision and the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the payer has a business/ source of income in India. What is important for Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is not whether the right to property is used “in” or “for the purpose of” a business, but to determine whether such business is “carried on by such person in India”;
During the assessment year 2006-07 in question in the provisions laid down u/s 32(i)(iia) there was specific condition alongwith installation of new plant or machinery after 31st March, 2005 that the new plant or machinery must also be acquired after 31st March, 2005.
The assessees are availing loans from SNBFCL and passing over the loans to various Self Help Groups (SHGs) working under them. In fact, the loan amounts are not utilized by the assessee trusts. They are utilized by the SHGs working under the trusts. The ultimate payer of the interest is not the assessee trusts, but the SHGs.
Assessing Officer was carried away by the original return filed by the assessee, wherein originally the income admitted in the course of search was not returned by it. But the fact is that the assessee had filed a revised return before completing the assessment.
In the present case, the assessees being the builders, had the option to recognize their income either on percentage completion method or on project completion method. Therefore, it was not certain to hold that the assessees were liable at all to file returns under section 139(1). Whether the assessees had recognized their income for the impugned assessment years is also not clear. The returns were filed after search made under section 132 but before the issue of notice under section 153A.
Now, we examine the MOU between India and US. As per this MOU, regarding para 4(b) of Article 12 of India US DTAA, it was provided that there will be no FTS if technology is not made available to the person acquiring the services. It was also specified that technology will be considered “made available” when the person acquiring the services is enabled to apply the technology.
On perusal of the A.O.’s order and material on record, we find that the CIT invoked section 263 of the Act because the CIT did not feel satisfy with the conclusion made by the A.O not on account of that the order of the A.O. was erroneous. The CIT invoked section 263 of the Act simply on account that the A.O. did not carry out the investigation of the case on the line of investigation as CIT wants.
In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra) hold that the assessee has no PE in India and, hence, not liable to tax and accordingly the grounds taken by the assessee are allowed.
