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.
On the issue of disallowance u/s. 14A, this Bench of the Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that this disallowance should be restricted to 1% of dividend income. Following the same, in this appeal also we hold that the disallowance u/s 14A for earning exempt dividend income should be restricted to 1% of dividend income. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to do so and work out the quantum of disallowance. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed as directed above.
Short fall in the market value of securities. – Rs.4,29,64,559.00 – we are of the view that the claim of the assessee could not be rejected merely on the ground that in the books of account the securities were being valued as per the notifications issued by the R.B.I. However, it is not clear from the orders of the lower authorities whether such securities were held by the assessee by way of stock in trade or by way of investment.
At the outset, it was pointed out by the learned AR that the tax effect in the present case is less than Rs. 3 lac. He has produced before us the demand notice according to which the total tax has been computed at Rs. 2,12,781/-. The learned DR could not controvert the quantum of tax effect.
