The Explanation to section 92(1) of the Act clarifies that the allowance for any expense or interest arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the ALP and therefore the disallowance is made under section 92(1) and not under section 40A(2) of the Act.
As per Explanation 7; no penalty is leviable if the assessee proves that the price charged or paid in such transaction was computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 92C and in the manner prescribed under section in good faith and with due diligence.
Having been served with a legal notice for the levy of penalty u/s. 271B, it was incumbent on the assessee to cause to comply with the provision, at least for the second year and, in any case, seek legal opinion in its respect. Rather, it could have, on its own, requested the AO not levy the penalty for that year (i.e., A.Y. 2006-07), explaining that the non-audit of its accounts u/s. 44AB stood caused only due to its ignorance of law,
In so far as the DTAA between India and Canada is concerned, it is observed that article 12(4) thereof gives the definition of the term fees for include services while article 12(5)(a) provides that notwithstanding the said definition given in article 12(4), fees for included services does not include amount paid for services that are ancillary and subsidiary as well as inextricably and essentially linked, to the sale of property.
As stated earlier, the risk and liabilities undertaken by the charter M/s Puyvast, the Netherlands entity, is limited only to a situation where the tonnage carried by the vessel is less than 19500 tonnes. Therefore, the substantial freight beneficiary is the owner of the ship, the Iranian entity and in view of this, the conclusion of the revenue authorities that relief under DTAA is not allowable is justified
During the period when the eligible unit enjoys exemption u/s.10B of the Act , if it suffers a loss then the same will be quarantined and carried forward to the assessment years immediately following the last of the assessment years for which the Assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s.10B of the Act, for being set off in accordance with law as if it were any other loss to be dealt with in accordance with Sec.70 to 72 and 32(2) of the Act.
We, next, consider the assessee’s argument that the document itself explains the source of the money with it (as on the relevant dates), so that the mandate of the section is satisfied, and no addition could be made. That is, the Department cannot take a contrary stand, accepting the document as true, yet overlooking the fact that the same itself clearly spells out the source of the money.
It is essential that the expenditure incurred on the construction of any structure on the leased premises should result in saving of the revenue expenditure at the subsequent stage. In the present case, from the pleadings of both the sides, it cannot be ascertained whether the assessee is getting enduring benefit of revenue nature from the additional structure or renovation/repairs undertaken by the assessee on the leased out premises. In our considered opinion, the case of the assessee very much falls within the ambit of Explanation 1 of section 32(1) of the Act. Therefore, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed being devoid of merit.
In our considered opinion. for making any disallowance u/s. 14A is to firstly examine the assessee’s claim of having incurred some expenditure or no expenditure in relation to exempt income. If the AO gets satisfied with the same then there is no need to compute disallowance as per Rule 8D.
It is clear that the completion of assessment/re-assessment without furnishing the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act is not sustainable in law as it is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to supply them within reasonable time as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v ITO (supra).
