The assessee had not deducted tax at source on the ground that the depositors intended to file form No. 15G/15H in time but Form No. 15G/15H were not filed by the date on which the interest was credited/paid to the depositors. In section 40 the word shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the heads Profits and gains of business or profession have been employed.
The main issue is with regard to allowability of foreign travel expenditure. The assessee claimed foreign travel expenditure at Rs. 20,35,971. As the assessee not furnished details of expenditure relating to business and pleasure trips, the Assessing Officer disallowed 80% of foreign travel expenses at Rs. 16,28,777. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow 1/3rd of the expenditure instead of 1/5th of the expenditure. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us.
Tribunal had taken the view that when the AIR shows some investment and the assessee denies it, no addition can be made on account of unexplained investments without further evidence to show that the assessee made investments.
Regarding allowability of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad)/(vi), we are of the opinion that there is no allegation that the assessee is not imparting education. The argument of the Department is that some benefit given to the founder member of the trust disables the trust from getting exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad)/(vi).
The learned DR strongly defending the order passed by the CIT (A) submitted that the assessee has deliberately made excess payment to its AE with an intention to reduce its profit. The learned DR submitted that the CIT (A) after considering all aspects has correctly determined the ALP.
Learned AR argued that tax free securities were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade and hence the provisions of section 14A cannot apply to disallow any expenditure notwithstanding the fact that the interest income is exempt.
In the case of the assessee, it is clear that a precise and definite information was received by the Assessing Officer regarding receipt of accommodation entries in respect of capital from various persons aggregating to Rs. 14.45 lakhs. He compared the information with the information available in the return of the assessee.
The main claim in the present year is a sum of Rs. 14,50,123 which represents interest expenses on the loans used for construction of the building and which according to assessee deserves to be allowed under section 24(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the rental income.
AO observed that the assessee has not included the excise duty in the valuation of closing stock. Under the provisions of section 145A of the Act, the assessee should include the excise duty component of purchase price of raw material while valuing closing stock of raw material, Work-in-Progress (WIP) and finished goods.
This issue is well established that determination of ALP can be made only with regard to international transactions of the assessee with its AE and it cannot be extended to international transaction of the assessee with its Non-AEs. Therefore, the ALP can be worked out only with respect to international transaction of the assessee with its AE. If it is so, it just and proper to restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the calculations submitted by the assessee after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of hearing and if the aforementioned calculations are correct then the difference being within the safe harbour of +/- 5 per cent, no addition with regard to ALP should be made.
