It is well-settled law that merely on the ground of low gross profit ratio, the addition to the assessee’s returned income cannot be made. Even if, the assessee’s profit and loss account is discarded by the Assessing Officer, it has to be examined whether the Assessing Officer adopted the rational basis for making the addition. In the present case, we find that the Assessing Officer merely referred to the discount of 10 per cent. offered by retailers on the printed price but did not demonstrate as to how that affected the gross profit declared by the assessee. He had not brought on record any comparable case, wherein, the net profit declared by a tax payer in the similar business, was higher, than the one declared by the assessee.
There is no scrutiny assessment in the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Thus, the Assessing Officer has not formed any opinion on these issues, i.e., about the assessability of interest expenses. There is no condition in section 147 that information should have flown from an external source after filing of the return and only then a notice under section 148 can be issued.
From the perusal of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it is seen that in paragraph 1 the Assessing Officer has mentioned about the receipt of report from the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax indicating that enquiries were initiated by the Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) to probe into bank account which were used by entry operators for the purpose issue of cheques to beneficiaries against cash paid by them.
In the present case, the main dispute is regarding revenue recognition relating to unused talk time remaining available as at the end of the year. As noted earlier, there is no dispute that company had to provide talk time to its subscriber till the expiry of the period of card or till complete utilization of talk time, whichever is earlier. As long as assessee is under obligation to provide talk time, it cannot be said that a debt has accrued in favour of assessee-company against the subscriber.
As regards another facet of addition in this case which has resulted from enhancement made by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) by holding that assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F(1) on the payment of Rs. 55,70,800/-. This has been denied on the ground that the payment was made by M/s Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd. wherein the assessee was Director and not by the assessee himself. In this regard, it is the assessee’s claim that the assessee has duly made the arrangement for booking of the flat and necessary documentation were made by the assessee in his individual capacity.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that that even if any freight, telecommunication or insurance expense during the year, are reduced from the export turnover, such sums will also have to be reduced from the total turnover of the company for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 10A.
Indisputably, payment of Rs. 29,857/- has been made to M/s Network Solutions for downloading software and provisions of sec. 194J of the Act are attracted. The provisions of said sec. 194J lay down that any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of (a) fees for professional services, or (b) fees for technical services, or (c) royalty, or (d) any sum referred to in clause (va) of section 28, shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque of draft or by any other mode,
Oil and natural gas and its exploration are a field of specialized technical knowledge and not for the use of public at large. A specific training is required in the field. The information obtained by the assessee are also of technical nature. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that it contains general information is without any justification.
Admittedly, the facts of the year under consideration and assessment year 2004-05 are identical. In AY 2004-05, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on certain assets while in the year under consideration, he disallowed the depreciation on all the assets. In our opinion, when the facts are identical, the Assessing Officer is not justified in taking a view inconsistent with the view taken by the Department in AY 2004-05.
U/s 9(1)(vi)(c) royalty payable by a person who is a non-resident is deemed to arise in India where the royalty is payable in respect of any right etc utilised for the purposes of a business carried on by such person in India or for the purposes of earning any income from any source in India. Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is a deeming provision and the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the payer has a business/ source of income in India. What is important for Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is not whether the right to property is used “in” or “for the purpose of” a business, but to determine whether such business is “carried on by such person in India”;
