As rightly submitted by the learned DR, one of the reasons given by the AO for making disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was that the payment of freight charges was made by the assessee on account of air fare and not shipping charges and even the said air fare was not directly paid to the airlines but the same was paid to the different parties who acted as freight booking agents.
Assessee has objected to the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority and has also filed the valuation report by an Approved Valuer in support of the actual fair market value. The provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 50C, provides that where the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer,
In the case before us, admittedly no plans were made, therefore, there is no question of getting the same approved. Apart from this, the ld. counsel of the assessee admitted that assessee has no evidence to prove that assessee wanted to start construction. If the tax is allowed to be postponed merely on the basis of purchase of plot then no assessee would pay correct taxes during the year
The assessee has made the payment for availing e-mail infrastructure, which is owned by the parent company. It is using this e-mail infrastructure facilities for communication between its employees and outside business partners. Such facilities of secured internet facilities facilitates the day-to-day business operation of the assessee and does not bring into existence any enduring benefit or creation of a new asset to the assessee.
There was neither any other contrary view nor the assessee brought on record any material controverting the findings of the Assessing Officer in this regard. Accordingly, the finding of the Assessing Officer that amount received by the assessee had to be taxed as business profits in terms of the provisions of Article 7 of the DTAA, read with section 44D and section 115A is confirmed and upheld.
The words used in s. 254(2) are ‘shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice’. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and pass a fresh decision.
Perusal of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer does not show any application of mind on his part. He simply accepted the claim of the assessee with regard to the issues considered by the CIT. This is a case where the Assessing Officer mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or enquiry.
As provided in the said clause, any advance or loan made by a company to a shareholder or concern in which the shareholder has a substantial interest would not be regarded as a deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) if lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the lending company and the loan or advance is made by the lending company in the ordinary course of its business.
The authorities below have held that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions relating to the minimum engagement of workers and use of new plant and machinery in setting up of industrial undertaking as required in section 80-IB(2).
It is not necessary for the TPO to demonstrate tax avoidance and diversion of tax/ income before invoking the provisions of section 92C and 92CA . To determine the arm’s length nature of any international transactions. Consequently, it is wrong in attaching importance to the fact that the assessee Associated Enterprise (A.E.) is earning losses.
