As regard the provisions of sec.28(va), the Tribunal held that with the insertion of the said provisions w.e.f. 01.40.2003, receipts on account of giving up right to carry on business even if it is capital receipt would now be charged to tax as ‘income from business’. It was held that if the compensation is paid for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ which the ‘transferor’ is not carrying on, the same would be chargeable u/s.28(va) of the Act.
We have considered submissions of ld representatives of parties and orders of authorities below. We agree that ld CIT(A) is justified to hold that the entire sales which are unaccounted cannot be the undisclosed income of the assessee. It is a fact that department has not disputed that there is unaccounted purchases. Therefore, all the purchases are accounted for. If the sales are unaccounted, which is outside the books of account, only net profit rate should be taken as income of the assessee, as rightly held by ld CIT(A). Therefore, we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) and reject ground of appeal taken by department.
Deduction of payment of employees’ contribution towards provident fund and ESI cannot be disallowed under section 43B, if paid before the due date of filing the return. ACIT Vs. M/s. Shakti Bhog Foods Pvt. Ltd.
While computing book profits the AO added Provision for Doubtful debts of Rs.3,53,35,020/- debited to the profit and loss account to the profits arrived at in the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sec.115JA(2) of the Act. The question whether provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances have to be added while computing book profits u/s.115JA of the Act has to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee because of the retrospective amendment introduced in Section 115JA of the said Act.
The issue whether a particular let out is business or earning rental income by the owner of the premises has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, so far as the rental income for the let out premises owned by the assessee is concerned, the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in various decisions and it has been held that the income realized by such owner by way of rental income from a building, whether commercial building or residential, is assessable under the head ‘income from house property’.
The condition precedent for making the reference by invoking the provisions of Section 142A thus is that there should be something on record to show that the assessee in first place has made such investment outside the books or the investment so made by him is not fully disclosed in the books of account and once this condition is satisfied, the quantum of such investment made can be ascertained by the Assessing Officer by making reference u/s 142A in order to make the addition u/s 69 or 69B, whichever is applicable.
It was held that what is covered u/s.44C is the expenditure that is common in nature meaning thereby that the benefit of the said expenditure is derived both by the Head Office and the Branch. It was held that payment of salary made in the case of the assessee was to expatriate employees who were working actually with the assessee in India though the payment was made to them by the Head Office outside India. It was held that the expenditure incurred on such payment thus was incurred exclusively for the branch in India and the same was not covered within the purview of sec.44C.
It can be observed from the earlier parts of the TPO’s order that he confined himself only to IT/ITES for the purposes of bench marking. In such a case, there could have been no question of the TPO embarking upon the figures in relation to non-IT/ITES segments of some of the comparable cases as chosen by him. Apart from making a general statement that the TPO also considered the figures from non-IT/ITES segments in some of the comparable cases, no material has been placed on record to substantiate this argument.
The High Court has failed to appreciate that while charging interest from the assessees, the Department first adjusts the amount paid towards interest so that the principal amount of tax payable remain outstanding and they are entitled to charge interest till the entire outstanding is paid. But when it comes to granting of interest on refund of taxes, the refunds are first adjusted towards the taxes and then the balance towards interest. Hence, as per the stand that the Department takes they are liable to pay interest only up to the date of refund of tax while they take the benefit of assessees funds by delaying the payment of interest on refunds without incurring any further liability to pay interest,. This stand taken by the respondents is discriminatory in natrure and thereby causing great prejudice to the lakhs and lakhs of assessees.
Reimbursement of custom duty paid by the assessee could not form part of amount for the purpose of deemed profits u/s 44BB unlike the other amounts received towards reimbursement. Following the view in this decision, Mumbai Bench in their decision in Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines(supra)held that service tax being a statutory liability, would not involve any element of profit and accordingly, the same could not be included in the total receipts for determining the presumptive income.
