There is no disagreement between the taxpayer and the AO that (a) in terms of the license agreement, the taxpayer has granted only right to use of a copyrighted article and not for the use of a copyright and (b) the copyright continue to remain with the CGI. The Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc has observed that if the payment was for a copyright, it was liable to be classified as ‘royalty’ under the Act as well as under the tax treaty.
Where Land Revenue records showed no crop was cultivated and no agricultural activity was undertaken on the land owned by the assessee before sale thereof and assessee produced no evidence of user for agricultural purposes other than sketchy and vague statements of neighbours, denial of deduction by AO under section 54B deserved to be upheld.
We are of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that all the primary facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act nor any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts has been ascribed in the circumstances narrated before us. It cannot be said that the assessee suppressed any material facts. It is well-settled that if a notice under sect ion 148 of the Act has been issued without the jurisdictional foundation u/s 147 of the Act being available to the AO, the notice and the subsequent proceedings will be without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be struck down
Hon’ble Delhi High Court that in the case of C.I.T. vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta (2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del.) in the context of issue of notice u/s 143(2) in block assessment, which are in pari materia to proceedings u/s. 148, wherein it has held that section 143(2) is a mandatory provision whether one looks at it from the standpoint of a regular assessment or from the standpoint of an assessment under Chapter XIVB. Section 143(2) has no application in a situation where the Assessing Officer, on receipt of the return of undisclosed income in the Form No. 2B from the assessee, is satisfied with the same as reflecting the true state of affairs then it is not necessary for him to embark upon any further enquiry or investigation but where the Assessing Officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed income filed by the assessee, the procedure in section 143(2) has to be followed.
The Tribunal referred to CBDT circular No. 8/2005, dtd. 29.08.2005 and opined that once fringe benefit tax is levied on expenses incurred, it follows that the same are treated as fringe benefits provided by the assessee as employer to its employees and the same have to be appropriately allowed as expenses incurred wholly and exclusively incurred by the assessee for the purpose of its business.
In this case, the return of income was filed under section 139 (1) on 31.10.2001. The same was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. There was no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The reassessment proceedings u/s 147 was initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2008 by recording the reasons. The reopening proceedings were initiation on the information received from Investigation Wing that assessee has received accommodation entries during the year. Thus, the Assessing Officer had considered the information received form investigation wing and has formed an opinion on the basis of that material and then initiated the proceedings for reassessment.
The assessee was regularly employing the method of valuation for valuing the stock at cost or net realizable value whichever is less. By shifting to a new ERP package, for example, SAP 2 worked out the value of the stock at cost, any reduction in the valuation of the stock is not permitted in law. The assessee’s claim that the regularly employed method means change method should be adopted in subsequent years is also untenable. The regular employed method by the assessee must have been followed in the past years which is continued to be followed in the subsequent years. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the case laws relied upon, we find no fault in the orders of the authorities below.
Indisputably, the ld. CIT(A) considered additional material in relation to two comparables and that of the assessee, which was not available before the TPO/AO. Apparently, the ld. CIT(A) did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 46A of the IT Rules,1962 nor allowed any opportunity to the AO. The powers of the CIT(A) to admit additional evidence are not only in situations where the evidence could not be produced before lower authorities owing to lack of adequate opportunity but also in situations where the fresh evidence would enable the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal or for any other substantial cause.
Travelling expenses have been incurred in connection with technical services agreement. Therefore, the expenditure has been incurred for earning royalty/FTS. In spite of the fact that the agreement provides inter-alia for adequate level of support and posting its personnel, the expenses for which will be reimbursed, the fact remains that the expenditure has been incurred for earning the royalty/FTS. The expenditure is that of the assessee and not that of the Indian subsidiary company. Article 12 provides for taxation of royalty/FTS in the source country on gross basis at a concessional rate of tax. This means that the expenditure incurred for earning royalty/FTS is not deductible in computing gross royalties or gross FTS received by the assessee company. The assessee has found that taxation under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not more beneficial to it. Therefore, the receipts have been offered for taxation under Article 12 of the DTAA.
There is no dispute to the fact that the expenditure on horticulture and other heads was incurred for the purpose of business. The assessee has also furnished necessary details pertaining to such expenses incurred. Similar expenses were also allowed by the department in the last year. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire expenditure on horticulture and out of other heads, i.e. business promotion, consumable stores, miscellaneous expenses and repairs & maintenance only on the ground that the expenditure incurred in the year under consideration are on the higher side.
