Tribunal held that use of the expression ’may be taxed’ in the second sentence of Article 7 on business profits would permit both the state, in which the permanent establishment (PE) is situated (Source State or PE State), as well as the Residence State of the enterprise, the right to tax the business profits attributable to the PE.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raju Bhatra reported in (2009) 310 ITR 105 (SC) has laid down the ratio that surcharge leviable under the Finance Act was a distinct charge not dependent for its leviability on the assessee’s liability to pay incometax but on assessed tax. Therefore, even without the proviso to section 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to tax in the case of block assessment of search cases, the Finance Act, 2001 was applicable to block assessment under Chapter XIV-B in relation to the search initiated on April6, 2000 and according surcharge was leviable.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of R.K. Jain (supra) has observed that in case of search material, the same is to be assessed by way of block assessment under Chapter XIV-B. Similar view is echoed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. M.K. E. Menon and by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in N.R. Paper & Board Ltd. & others (supra). A similar view has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (supra). In view of above, we are of the view that the impugned addition of Rs. 83 lacs cannot be made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis by taking recourse to sec. 143(3). Thus, the additional ground of the assessee is allowed.
It is clear from this proviso that where assessee transfers his capital asset after 30th September of the financial year he gets an opportunity to make an investment of Rs.50 lakhs each in two different financial years and is able to claim exemption upto Rs.1 Crore u/s 54EC of the Act. Since the language of the proviso is clear and unambiguous, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee is entitled to get exemption upto Rs.1 Crore in this case. Since the wording of the proviso to section 54EC is clear, the benefits which are available to the assessee cannot be denied. In view of above, it is hereby held that the assessee is entitled for exemption of Rs.1 crore as six months’ period for investment in eligible investments involved is two financial years.
Although interest paid to the head office of the assessee bank by its Indian branch which constitutes its PE in India is not deductible as expenditure under the domestic law being payment to self, the same is deductible while determining the profit attributable to the PE which is taxable in India as per the provisions of article 7(2) & 7(3) of the Indo¬Japanese treaty read with paragraph 8 of the protocol which are more beneficial to the assessee.
Section 14A were introduced with prospective effect from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards. However, sub-section (2) of Section 14A remained an empty shell until the introduction of Rule 8D on 24.03.2008 which gave content to the expression “such method as may be prescribed” appearing in Section 14A(2) of the said Act.
Assessing Officer noticed from audit report Form No. 3CD that the assessee has incurred contractual payments towards fabrication and erection expenses and deducted TDS. But TDS was not deposited within the time limit prescribed u/s. 201 of the Act. The same was deposited on 15.02.2006. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not contribute anything which supports his case.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.N. Desai Charitable Trust (supra) while deliberating upon the scope of enquiry for the purpose of granting of recognition u/s.80G of the Act opined that it does not envisage the commissioner to act as an assessing authority because the actual assessment of institution would not ultimately effect the claim for deduction u/s. 80G qua the donors.
Plain reading of above provisions makes it abundantly clear that for the purposes of section 10A, the eligible business (appellant’s branch office in this case) is to be considered as a separate entity and transfer of goods or services by eligible business to/from other business of the assessee are to be treated as if such transfer has been made to/from an unrelated third party. Therefore, supply of software by appellant’s branch office to appellant’s head office is to be considered as export to an unrelated third party and profits derived by appellant from such export are eligible for exemption u/s 10A of the Act.
It is not disputed before us that basement and ground floor were fully owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business by the assessee. This was accepted by the department in the AY 1998-99 as per details available on record. Once, the assessee is the owner of the asset and put the assessee for the purpose of business during the relevant FY, then the depreciation has to be allowed as per the details.
