It is also a fact that the assessing officer initiated the recovery proceedings without passing any order on the stay application of the assessee. It is also a fact that the recovery proceedings under S. 220(6) were initiated without attending to or expressly rejecting the stay application filed by the assessee before the assessing officer. In our opinion, this approach is certainly not appreciated.
The question as to whether the amount constituted the corpus fund of the assessee-trust, in view of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) after considering declaration from all the 60 donors of the corpus fund certifying that they have donated towards corpus fund of the assessee-society and the revenue has not raised any ground of appeal against the admission of these declarations produced by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), the amount in question has to be held as constituting ‘Corpus Fund’ of the assessee-society and accordingly, the order of the Judicial Member on the issue is to be confirmed.
Mere crediting of the interest to a reserve cannot be said to be an incidence by which the said interest could be charged to tax. Whatever has been recovered by the assessee has been shown as income. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim of such interest under the provisions of section 43D and the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected simply on the ground that interest had been credited on such type of debts in the reserve account.
It is settled law that when an officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in a loss of revenue or when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer takes one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Assessee was granted right of lifting water from said well which is independent right given by the State Government for the rent of Rs. one per year. There is also nothing to suggest that right of lifting of water was acquired by assessee by incurring any cost. Such right is not covered by the provisions of section 55(2). Therefore, no capital gain could be worked out, since provisions of section 45(1) read with section 48(1) are not applicable in respect of payment made to assessee in lieu of surrendering the right to lift the water from the well. Accordingly, capital gain as worked out by the Assessing Officer is not justified.
It is for the AO when he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may refer the computation of arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction under section92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. It was argued by Ld. DCIT (DR) Mr. Tarsem Lal that the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Surinder Mahajan, could not point out any specific mention in the statute.
The various clauses of the MOUs need to be examined in the light of the criteria laid down by the Courts to determine whether the doctors attached to the appellant hospital are employees of the hospital. The test which is uniformly applied in order to determine whether a particular relationship amounts to employer-employee relationship is the existence of a right of control in respect of the manner in which work is to be done by the person employed
Assessee in its transfer pricing study to TPO stated that it has selected CUP method as the primary method in AL analysis. It was also stated that the rate charged to its AEs are same to the rates charged to independent third party who operate in the same geographical region availing similar services. We observe that assessee furnished details of the said working to the TPO.
Corpus donation could not be considered as general donation in AY 2006-07 and 2007-08, merely on the ground of its utilisation in AY 2008-09 for giving corpus donation to other charitable institutions. Further, as per instruction No. 1132/CBDT dated 05.01.1978, it has been clarified that the payment of a sum by one charitable trust to another for utilization by the donee trust towards its charitable objects is proper application of income for charitable purposes in the hands of the donor trust, and the donor trust will not loose exemption u/s 11.
(i) Principle of mutuality applies under the Act. As such, there can be no deduction of interest paid by Indian branch to head office/other overseas branches. (ii) However, the assessee is entitled to deduction of interest paid to head office/other overseas branches as per the terms of the DTAA.(iii) Mutuality applies in relation to income earned by the Indian branch from head office/other overseas branches. As such the interest income so earned cannot be charged to tax. (iv) Consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) cannot apply.
