The Tribunal observed that the commission paid was disallowed by invoking provisions under Section 36(1)(ii) and not by invoking Section 40A(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. This implies that the AO had not disputed the services rendered by Renu Munjal but he was of the opinion that dividend had been paid in the garb of commission because it actually reduced the corpus available for distribution as dividend. Section 36(1 )(ii) of the Act had been incorporated to check, inter-alia, private companies from avoiding tax by distributing their profits to their members (showing them to be their employees) by way of commission and not by way of dividend. The AO was not correct in holding that the corpus for paying the dividend had reduced as it does not reflect the correct legal position with reference to section 36(1 )(ii) of the Act.
Reference was made to the decisions of Apex Court rendered in the case of M.P. Electricity Board 35 STC 188 (sic). In this case it was held that electricity is goods within the meaning of section 2(3) of Central Province and Virar Sales-tax Act. This decision was rendered in the context of the language of a particular statute. As such this meaning cannot be extended to the facts of the present case
Agreement between the assessee and the Non Resident is only for rendering services which cannot be considered as technical services and as there is no PE to the said non resident in India, the amount does not accrue or arise in India and further as there is no need for deducting the amount under section 195, there is no violation of provisions of section 195 and accordingly the same cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia).
I.T.O. Vs. L’oreal India P. Ltd. – ITAT acknowledged the fact that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is one of the standard methods in case of distribution and marketing activities i.e. when goods are purchased from Associated Enterprises (AEs) and sold to unrelated parties.
Indian Company exercising control and supervision over a seconded employee and bearing the salary cost should be considered as an economic employer and not liable to withhold tax under Section 195 of the Act on the reimbursement of the salary to the foreign company on which tax has been withheld under Section 1923 of the Act. Further the Tribunal held that the payment to IDS USA did not represent ‘Fees for Technical Services’
In this case it is an undisputed fact that the tax on the entire income received by these assessees was required to be deducted at source at the appropriate rates by the respective payers u/s 195 of the Act . The Revenue have not placed before us any material controverting these findings of the ld. CIT(A) nor pointed out any contrary decision so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter.
It is a fact that the inaccuracy involved in instant case is of Rs. 124.04 lakhs which works out to nearly 6 per cent of the profits and the assessee describes the same as trivial and ignorable. Stand of revenue in this regard is that the Assessing Officer has only to establish the inaccuracy in the books of account maintained by the assessee and the triviality or otherwise is not the issue. The provisions are clear that in principle the Assessing Officer can assume jurisdiction under section 145 either for the reasoning of the ‘incompleteness of the books or for the reasoning of the inaccuracy of the same.
Section 40 is applicable only when deductions under Sections 30 to 38 are being made in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession under Section 28. The exception in Section 40 is carved out, only for the purpose of Section 28 and not for computing the exemption of income of a charitable trust under Section 11.
There is no dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee while explaining the source of jewellery interalia stated that Mrs. Darshana K. Jethani has received jewellery of gold and diamond by way of ‘Will’ of Smt.Lachmi Ukarmal Mangtani, her grandmother. In support, he also placed on record the copy of the said will for verification and also stated that the said will was executed in the presence of Dr.Murli M. Ratnani (PAN- address).
In the instant appeal, there are total three grounds. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raises the same issue. Both impugn the directions issued by Ld. CIT (A) to the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports 318 ITR 87 in view of the fact that the above decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 29.6.2010.
