Basic question to be considered by us is whether the nature of services rendered by SEL fall within the ambit of technical, managerial and consultancy services as defined under Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-sec (1) to sec. 9 of the IT Act. As per the said explanation, fees for technical services means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for rendering any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including provision of services of technical or other personnel). As brought out in the earlier paragraphs of this order, the agreement between the assessee and M/s SEL stipulates that M/s SEL shall be responsible for the shipment of raw material to the assessee from its importers within the stipulated time and as per the specific quality and quantity.
It is undisputable fact that though the Assessing Officer had concluded the assessment way back in 1999, the assessment reaches its finality in all respects only when the appellate forum decided the issues on such an assessment. Consequent on the final findings recorded by the appellate authorities, there was no liability to pay tax under section 207 for the assessment year under consideration and, therefore, levy of interest under section 234C for deferment of advance-tax payable by the assessee does not arise when the income of the assessee had finally been arrived at a loss of Rs. 1.6 crores. Interest paid under section 234C is for deferment of advance tax. When advance-tax paid is refunded and also interest paid under section 234B, there is no logic in making the assessee liable for interest under section 234C, namely, for deferment of payment of advance tax. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to refund interest levied under section 234C.
In the above ruling, fees paid to a resident of Canada as consideration for analysis of samples and ores conducted from technical lab was held as fees for technical services u/s.9(1)(vii) and Article 12 of the India-Canada Treaty. No arguments were made on the aspect of ‘make available’ requirement present in the definition of ‘fees for technical services’ under Article 12 of the Treaty and the AAR also did not consider this. Thus, the decision relied on by the learned Departmental Representative is distinguishable.
The assessment order is silent on the provisions of section 43B(f) and has blindly allowed unpaid portion of leave encashment as an allowable deduction. There has been no proper inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer. There is no discussion in the assessment order whether unpaid portion of the leave encashment is an allowable deduction. In the instant case, there is no discussion at all in the assessment order why the unpaid leave encashment is allowed as deduction. Prima facie, it is felt that the Assessing Officer has not noted the relevant statutory provisions viz., section 43B(f). It is a settled law that non-consideration of mandatory provisions of law in an order will lead the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd., for development and building of the housing project on the land belonging to him. The assessee contributed the land, undertook the developmental activities in the said land and thus complied with all other conditions which have to be fulfilled before claiming the benefit u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. In the present case, it was agreed that after completion of the building in terms of the agreement, the assessee was given 24% of the share of the building area which he was entitled to sell to various persons, it was also clear from the joint development agreement that the undertaking of developing and building housing project was jointly undertaken by the assessee and M/s Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the assessee was entitled for the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.
In the assessee is entitled to receive interest on refund which is out of any tax. As a matter of fact, the refund arises only on tax portion. There is misconception in the interpretation of the Assessing Officer that interest can be paid only on the tax portion in the refund and not on the entire amount of refund. Moreover, section 244A doesn’t distinguish that the assessee shall be entitled to receive interest only on tax portion in the refund and not on the entire amount of refund as projected by the revenue.
In terms of section 9(1)(ii) income chargeable under the head “salaries” under section 15 shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India if it is earned in India, i.e., if the services under the agreement of employment are or were rendered in India. In the instant case, the employment services were entirely rendered outside India. Hence, the salary is not earned for rendering services in India. Therefore, salary for the entire year is not taxable.
The Assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act for AY 2009-10, in so far as it relates to the profit derived from developing housing project, cannot be regarded as income of a charitable trust or institution within the meaning of Sec.11(1)(a) of the Act, because carrying on of the housing project was not a charitable purpose even in AY 2009-10 in view of the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The income from developing housing project by virtue of the provisions of Sec.13(8) of the Act would become part of the total income under the Act.
After going through the above provisions of law, it is clear that the Act has not provided for any cut off date up-to which only the information available in public domain has to be taken into consideration by the TPO, while making the transfer pricing adjustments and arriving at arm’s length price. The assessee as well as the Revenue is both bound by the Act and the rules there-under and, therefore, as provided under the Act and rules, they are supposed to be taking into consideration, the contemporaneous data relevant to the previous year in which the transaction has taken place.
This finding of the Tribunal in the case of Jaswant Singh (supra), clearly upholds the view that the provisions of section 57 do not provide for any deduction of expenditure from such salary income, etc. of an MLA. Only those exemptions as laid out as per the provisions of section 10(14), read with rule 2BB(1) and section 10(17) are allowable from an MLA’s salary and other allowances granted in such capacity. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals)’s action in rejecting the assessee’s claim for allowing deduction of expenditure under section 57 has to be upheld.
