In our considered view, this is a very important aspect of the matter inasmuch as if the assessee has incurred a loss on its entire project, whether onshore or offshore, the mere fact that the assessee has incurred a loss on onshore activities cannot be reason enough to show, or even indicate, that the value of the onshore activities was deliberately kept at a lower amount to avoid taxability in India. Of course, it could still make commercial sense that the offshore supplies are made at loss, as long as these supplies are at less than incremental costs i.e. marginal costs of offshore supplies, and thus overall losses of the assessee are minimized.
The facts of the present case are similar only in the case in I.T.A. No.350/Del/.2009 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi Bench ‘D’ has dealt with the similar issue which was at ground No.3 of the appeal. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and had remitted back file to the office of Assessing Officer for consideration of claim of assessee u/s 80IB. While deciding the matter, the Hon’ble Tribunal had considered various judicial pronouncements in which it was held that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. If an assessee under a mistake, misconception or not being properly instructed is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes are collected.
Assessee, on partition of the joint family, had received the balance capital of the family in the real estate business comprising various assets, which were in the nature of stock-in-trade and it cannot be considered that the various assets or properties received by the assessee on partition are capital assets and these capital assets were converted into stock-in-trade of the real estate when the assessee continued to carry on the business of the erstwhile joint family.
Chapter III of DTAA between India and Mauritius did not provide for taxing any fees paid for technical services. Only for a reason that DTAA is silent on a particular type of income, we cannot say that such income will automatically become business income of the recipient. In our opinion, when DTAA is silent on an aspect, the provisions of the Act has to be considered and applied. This aspect has not been dealt with by the authorities below. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this issue requires a fresh look by the A.O.
Here, the payments made by the assessee were to non-residents Indian who were working abroad. Assessee had made no deduction of tax at source whatsoever. As per the assessee, they were working for its business carried on in Nigeria and hence, by virtue of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, the fees payable to such non-residents could not be considered as income accruing or arising to them in India.
The plain reading of sec. 36(1)(ii) contemplates two situations. According to the first situation, any sum paid to an employee as a bonus or commission for services rendered would be allowed to the assessee. The second part exhibits the other condition that the deduction mentioned in the first situation could be allowed, if such sum would have not been payable to an employee as a profit or dividend meaning thereby if the amount of commission or bonus is receivable by an employee in the shape of profit/dividend then such commission paid to such employee would not be allowed as a deduction.
The assessee is solely responsible for executing the contract with the persons to whom he has given forklift vehicles on hire and it was only for fulfilment of this contract that he has also engaged the forklift vehicles from the outside parties. In case of hiring from outside parties the responsibility and the risk involved for performing the contract work lay with the assessee only and no such risk and responsibility seems to have been transferred to outside parties vis-à-vis his principals.
In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the AO found the payment of remuneration to director excessive having regard to either (a) fair market value of the services or facilities; or (b) the legitimate needs of the business of the assessee; or (c) the benefits derived by or accruing to the assessee on receipt of such services or facilities. The AO while making the disallowance observed that disallowance was made keeping in view quantum and nature of business of the assessee. But how quantum or nature of business affected payment of salary to its director, has not been elaborated.
In the present case, the assessee can be said to have discharged its onus under section 68 of the Act in proving the genuineness of the share capital in respect of the impugned 22 shareholders in the light of proposition laid down by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court in the cases cited above. The appellant has given all the necessary details in order to establish the identity of the aforementioned share applicants. It is also observed that all the share applicants are corporate assessees, incorporated under Indian Companies Act.
During the year under consideration the appellant received dividend income on surplus funds invested with various mutual funds through Citibank who acted as investment adviser with no cost to the appellant company. The dividends were directly credited to the bank account of the appellant electronically by ECS. No interest was paid by the appellant during the year. As such, the appellant did not incur any expenditure on earning dividend income and section 14A and the I.T. Act, 1961 did not apply.
