ACIT v. Result Services (P.) Ltd. – The assessee is paying rent to the holding company as reimbursement since last many years. This position has been accepted by the department all through and it has been never disputed even when provisions for TDS were on statute since 1994. Section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was inserted in Act w.e.f. 01.06.1994. Similarly, this position was also not disputed even after the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2006.
We find that certain fresh documents have been produced before CIT(A) and CIT(A) without calling for remand report or confronting such material to the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned order in a very precise manner to delete the impugned addition which is not justified. So, action of the CIT(A) is not only violative of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, but also against the natural justice because sufficient and cogent reasons have not been given in this case.
Having regard to the nature of the asset, if the AO is of the opinion, that valuation of the capital asset is required, but such reference can be made only to ascertain the fair market value, therefore, the applicability of section 55A(b)(ii) is also limited one. We have read section 50C alongwith these connected sections and then arrived at a conclusion that the AO is empowered to refer for valuation of a capital asset under specific circumstances as prescribed under this section provision of section 50C where he has found that the consideration received is less than the stamp duty.
Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim.
Section 195 of the Act clearly states that any person responsible for paying to a non resident any interest or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act shall at the time of credit of such income will income tax thereon at the rate inforce at the time of payment or credit. Therefore, the first test to be applied for deduction of TDS is to see whether income in the hands of payee is taxable in India or not.
In the instant case The CIT has not indicated the nature of information not furnished and without considering the documents filed by the applicant along with applications for registration u/s 12AA/80G has rejected assessee’s claim solely on the ground that applicant could not file most of the informations call for. We find force in the argument of ld. counsel that CIT failed to consider the claim of the applicant on merit, without considering the record and affording opportunity of being heard to the applicant on alleged non compliance. In the interest of natural justice we deem it fit and proper to restore the issues in question i.e. registration u/s 12AA/80G, back to the file of CIT for decision afresh on merit in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. We order accordingly.
Since the assessee failed to establish nexus of use of borrowed funds for the purpose of business to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, there is no escape from the finding that interest being paid by the assessee to the extent the amounts are diverted to sister concerns or other persons on interest free basis, are to be disallowed.
The facts of the present case are similar only in the case in I.T.A. No.350/Del/.2009 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi Bench ‘D’ has dealt with the similar issue which was at ground No.3 of the appeal. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and had remitted back file to the office of Assessing Officer for consideration of claim of assessee u/s 80IB. While deciding the matter, the Hon’ble Tribunal had considered various judicial pronouncements in which it was held that the authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. If an assessee under a mistake, misconception or not being properly instructed is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes are collected.
The plain reading of sec. 36(1)(ii) contemplates two situations. According to the first situation, any sum paid to an employee as a bonus or commission for services rendered would be allowed to the assessee. The second part exhibits the other condition that the deduction mentioned in the first situation could be allowed, if such sum would have not been payable to an employee as a profit or dividend meaning thereby if the amount of commission or bonus is receivable by an employee in the shape of profit/dividend then such commission paid to such employee would not be allowed as a deduction.
In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the AO found the payment of remuneration to director excessive having regard to either (a) fair market value of the services or facilities; or (b) the legitimate needs of the business of the assessee; or (c) the benefits derived by or accruing to the assessee on receipt of such services or facilities. The AO while making the disallowance observed that disallowance was made keeping in view quantum and nature of business of the assessee. But how quantum or nature of business affected payment of salary to its director, has not been elaborated.
