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.
Section 54EC of the Act having given the respondent a choice of investing either in the bonds of Rural Electrification Corporation Limited or the National Highway Authority, the revenue cannot insist that the respondent ought to have invested its capital gain on sale of property in the bonds of the National Highway Authority.. The statue itself provides that the assessee, who is subject to long terms capital gain tax, can avail of exemption under Section 54EC of the Act if he invests in bonds of either the National Highway Authority of India or the Rural Electrification Corporation Limited.
Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 held that the additional liability equivalent to a discount represents revenue expenditure must, by analogy of reasoning, apply to the premium which is paid by the assessee at the time of redemption of the debentures. In that view of the matter, the actual premium paid upon the redemption of the debentures would have to be classified as revenue expenditure,
