Though there are nine grounds raised by assessee there are only two issues involved in this appeal. One issue in ground no.3 is relating to confirmation of dis allowance of Rs. 25,000/- made by AO and further enhancement of dis allowance by Rs. 1,56,609/- u/s 14A of the IT Act.
Nandi Steels Limited Vs The ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- It is not in dispute that the land, building and bore well sold by the assessee were used by the assessee for its business purposes. It is also not disputed that these assets were fixed assets of the assessee. The only argument of the assessee has been that they have direct nexus with the business carried on by the assessee and therefore, are business assets and any gains from the sale of such assets would also have the character of business income.
The core issue that we are really required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee can be said to have a permanent establishment (PE)1 in India, and, if it is held that the assessee indeed has a permanent establishment in India how much profits can be taxed as being attributable to such a permanent establishment.
The course of events in the instant case shows that the assessee was really contemplating the construction of a residential house. This intention of the assessee is very clear from the fact that within days of the sale of her old property, the assessee had purchased the new site for constructing a residential house. The old property was sold on 8-6-2006. The new landed property was purchased immediately on 5-7-2006. The events of sale and purchase and their proximity clearly demonstrate that the assessee had purchased the property only for the purpose of constructing a residential house. The old property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 34,73,447, out of which the assessee was accountable for long-term capital gains of Rs. 32,77,450. The assessee has invested Rs. 33,88,160 for the purchase of the land, which is more than the quantum of long-term capital gains. This again demonstrates the fact that the assessee had arranged the transaction in such a bona fide manner so as to claim the exemption available under section 54F.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Trading in Electric Motors, Fans, Laboratory equipments and generation of Wind Power filed return declaring total income at Rs. 11,60,151/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was interalia observed by the AO that the assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs. 12,840/- being exempt u/s 10(34)
In Surat Electricity Co Ltd v. Asstt. CIT (2010) 35 DTR (Ahd) (Trib) 272 the assessee as per direction of the State Government supplied fodder to various cattle camps for maintaining smooth relations with the Government. In view of Explanation 5 to section 80 G it was held that the donation of grass fodder is not eligible for deduction. However, since it satisfied the test of commercial expediency it was held that it is allowable under section 37.
Radials International Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- The assessee had made investment under PMS. The profit has not arisen directly from the deposits made, but from the securities purchased from such deposits, which were traded by the portfolio manager on behalf of the assessee. The quantity of share traded is huge as is evident from the list appended with the assessment order. The shares have been traded frequently with a motive to maximize profit and not with a view to hold them as investment. The volume of the transaction is very high. All these facts indicate that the portfolio manager had in fact done trading on behalf of the assessee.
Addl. CIT Vs. J.A. Land & Housing Development India Limited (ITAT Kolkata) – Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of M/s. J.A.M. Chemical Works Limited. Assessing Officer was of the view that violation of Section 269SS which defines ‘loan or deposit’ & Section 269T defines ‘loan or deposit’ and the common word loan means lending a sum of money by one party to another upon agreement to repay.
DCIT Vs. Diamond ‘R’ US (ITAT Mumbai) – Exchange loss on refund of advances received from the customers is concerned, the same indeed constitutes admissible deduction irrespective of whether or not the amount so received were diverted to use by partners. It is so for the elementary reason that the proximate cost of loss having been incurred is receipt of advances from the customers and refunding the same-an exercise which is clearly in the course of normal business operations.
ADIT(IT) Vs Aditya Vikram Global House Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Royalty payment pursuant to a technical collaboration agreement in accordance with the Industrial policy of the Government of India, is exempt in the hands of the foreign company under clause (a) of Section 10(6A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also held that approval of the Reserve Bank of India is sufficient confirmation that the technical collaboration agreement is in accordance with the Industrial Policy.
