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,
Whether an assessment has escaped assessment or not must be determined by the Assessing Officer himself. The Assessing Officer cannot blindly follow the opinion of an audit authority for the purpose of arriving at a belief that income has escaped assessment.
As regards, more particularly, government securities, and bonds and debentures, the text specifies that premiums or prizes attaching thereto constitute interest. Generally speaking, what constitutes interest yielded by a loan security, and may properly be taxed as such in the State of source, is all that the institution issuing the loan pays over and above the amount paid by the subscriber, that is to say, the interest accruing plus any premium paid at redemption or at issue.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the original assessment order dated 28/2/1997 was set aside by the ITAT with a direction to pass fresh assessment order. Accordingly, fresh assessment order was passed on 24/12/2006 and the demand notice was served on 24/12/2006. As per Section 220(1) of the Act, the assessee was liable to pay the amount of demand within thirty days from the service of demand notice dated 24/12/2006.
Explanation to section 73 does not operate in respect of a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads of ‘interest on securities’, ‘income from house property’, ‘capital gains’ and ‘income from other sources’. In the instant case, the income from other sources was the only chargeable income, as the assessee had suffered a business loss otherwise. Therefore, Explanation to section 73 would not apply in the instant case. Further the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Darshan Securities (P.) Ltd. [2012] 206 Taxman 68/18 taxmann.com 142 supports the assessee’s case.
