Section 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint Commissioner. That expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in Section 2(28C). The Commissioner of Income Tax is not a Joint Commissioner within the meaning of Section 2(28C).
The assessee has not produced any evidence to indicate the apportionment of the OTS amount of Rs.91 lacs towards principal and interest. It is obvious that a part of above amount was towards interest for the OTS amount was admittedly more than Rs.72 lacs (principal amount).
There are concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal that no services are being provided by the assessee to the occupants of its property and that the service charges have to be included as a part of its rental income. The test to determine whether the service agreement is different from the rent agreement would be whether the service agreement could stand independently of the rent agreement.
It is well settled that the Legislature has conferred power to condone the delay to enable the Courts and Tribunals to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. Similarly, if the delay is not inordinate and unexplained when is condoned the maximum that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing parties.
On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same time, for depriving the benefit earlier granted to a class of the assessees whose assessments were still pending although such benefit will be available to the assessees whose assessments have already been concluded.
The TDR premium is liable to be paid by a member of the society who desires to utilize additional FSI in the form of transferable development rights. The principle of mutuality would clearly apply to instant case. In the context of the payment of non-occupancy charges by a member of a co-operative housing society to the society, a Division Bench of this Court held in Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 414, that the principle of mutuality would apply.
There is no distinction in principle between a slot charter and a voyage charter of a part of a ship. They are both in a sense charterers of a space in a ship. The phrase “operation of ships” in Article 9 must be understood in the context of the phrase “the business of operation of ships” in s. 44B. As income from slot hire agreements falls within s. 44B it must be held to be within the ambit of Article 9(1).
The submission that the upfront appraisal fee constitutes fees for technical services within the meaning of those words in Article 13(4)(c) is unsustainable. The said fees did not constitute payment in consideration of the respondent rendering any technical or consultancy services to the applicant/borrowers.
The Tribunal does not state that the material, including the comparables, furnished by the assessee was inadequate. The department also does not contend that the comparables were inadequate. They have analyzed the same in a particular manner whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has analyzed the same in a different manner. In other words, the revenue has not contended and the Tribunal had not held that the relevant comparables are insufficient.
The appeal was filed in June, 2000. Our Court in the matter of CIT Vs. Vijay V.Kavekar in Income Tax Appeal No.78 of 2007 dated 29th July, 2011 held that the CBDT Circular No.2/2011 issued on 9th February 2011 directing the Revenue not to file appeals under Section 260A in cases where the tax effect is less than Rs.10/- lacs. The said circular has retrospective effect and would also apply in respect of pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal would also not be entertained on the ground that the tax effect is less than Rs.10/- lacs.
