Mastek Limited Vs. The Addl.CIT ITAT that the taxpayer’s UK subsidiary was not merely undertaking marketing activities. The Tribunal held that the UK subsidiary should be characterised as a distributor on the basis of its agreement with the taxpayer, selling efforts, market and credit risks and overall business strategies. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the reward has to be determined with regard to return on sales rather than a mark-up on value added expenses (marketing and selling expenses).
In AY 1999-2000, before expiry of the original time limit of five consecutive assessment years for which deduction was available as per then applicable law, the amended law became applicable and the assessee was accordingly eligible for deduction for the extended period of 10 years, as against 5 years allowed under the preamended law.
When the CBDT itself has clarified that the amended provisions of Section 194I relating to deduction of tax at source for the purpose of Section 40(a)(ia) would be applicable for AY 2007-08, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance. We also find that similar issue came up before the learned CIT (A) in AY 2005-06 wherein he accepted the assessee’s contention.
As per sub-section (1) of Section 14A, no deduction is to be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total income. Sub-section (2) of Section 14A provides the procedure for determination of such expenditure by the Assessing Officer. The Board has also prescribed Rule 8D for determining the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning of exempt income. Thus, the disallowance can be made under sub-section (1) for the expenditure incurred for earning of exempt income.
Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of posting advertisement in various publication including newspapers. It has filed its return of income on 29.7.2005 declaring a total income of Rs.45,550. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under sec. 143(2) of the Act dated 26.7.2006 was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, learned Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the receipts appearing in the TDS Certificate vis-à-vis shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account.
Finance Act, 2007 has incorporated third proviso to section 194H stating, ‘no deduction shall be made under this section of any commission or brokerage payable by BSNL or MTNL to their PCO franchisees. The same is relevant for the A.Y. 2008-09. The issue is whether similar exemption is applicable for the assessment year prior to the assessment year 2008-09. This issue was adjudicated in favour of the assessee by co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.71 to 77/PN/2009.
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Miss Jagriti (supra) has held that sub-section (4) of section 139 provides the extension period of limitation as an exception to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 139 of the Act. Sub-sec. (4) was in relation to the time allowed to an assessee under sub-sec. (1) to file the return. Therefore, such provision was not an independent provision, but relates to the time contemplated under sub-sec.(1) of sec. 139. Therefore, subsec.(4) has to be read along with sub-sec.(1).
In the present case also, the assessee has made a claim for depreciation on WDV method but the rate chosen was not a correct one. The assessee asked for adopting the correct rate which is in fact, was only a prayer to rectify a mistake apparent on record. The assessee was not claiming any fresh claim before the assessing authority.
Advances were given to the said group companies as part of the corporate / business strategy of the assessee to expand the business operations. Assessee’s further submission is that lower authorities further failed to appreciate that since the loans and advances were advanced by the assessee to group companies engaged in the similar business out of commercial expediency, no part of interest expenditure was disallowable for advancing interest free loans.
Assessee has not obtained any benefit of enduring nature. The royalty is payable on the basis of volume of sales year to year. In the event of termination of agreement has to discontinue uses of material provided return everything in this respect. Hence it cannot be said that any benefit of enduring nature accrued to the assessee.
