In the present case, the assessee can be said to have discharged its onus under section 68 of the Act in proving the genuineness of the share capital in respect of the impugned 22 shareholders in the light of proposition laid down by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court in the cases cited above. The appellant has given all the necessary details in order to establish the identity of the aforementioned share applicants. It is also observed that all the share applicants are corporate assessees, incorporated under Indian Companies Act.
During the year under consideration the appellant received dividend income on surplus funds invested with various mutual funds through Citibank who acted as investment adviser with no cost to the appellant company. The dividends were directly credited to the bank account of the appellant electronically by ECS. No interest was paid by the appellant during the year. As such, the appellant did not incur any expenditure on earning dividend income and section 14A and the I.T. Act, 1961 did not apply.
Without any motive it is quite unnatural that any individual would extend the monetary benefit to any person in this day to day world. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajeev Tandon v. ACIT (supra) has observed that in such circumstances the taxation authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances.
It has further been the contention of the revenue that the amendments vide Finance Act 2010, inserting mutually exclusionary clauses in s. 44BB and s.44DA are clarificatory, and hence are retrospective in operation, w.e.f. AY 2004-05. We find that this contention is not at all correct as the said provision of the Act cannot be said to be clarificatory and hence retrospective in operation. In this regard in the case of CGG Veritas Services SA (supra) comes to the rescue of the assessee. Furthermore, the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee itself in Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2010, excluding the application of Section 44BB in cases where Section 44DA applies, is prospective and applies from assessment year 2011-12.
Finance Act, 2012 has amended the provisions of sec. 92CA of the Act retrospectively to empower the TPO to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions noticed by him in the course of proceedings before him, even if said transaction was not reported by the assessing officer.
It was held that the ‘gross amount’ royalty under the India-US DTAA includes not only the actual payment by way of royalty but also the tax withheld by the payer which is borne by him and paid to Central Government on behalf of the payee as agreed between the parties. In short, the ITAT held that the royalty has to be paid on the grossed up amount. ITAT Delhi also held that royalty is taxable on receipt basis irrespective of the system of accounting adopted by the parties.
The assessee entered into a composite contract with ONGC to provide complete Mud Engineering Services which have been termed as ‘Mud Services & supply Mud Chemicals’ to ONGC in the contract. Both the services as well as the material required to provide such services is a composite and integral part of the contract. The assessee specialized in providing these services along with specialized chemicals required for the purpose. Thus, both these aspects are composite and cannot be segregated in part. This was a case of composite work contract which cannot be considered in parts for the purpose of taxation. The assessee has opted for working out the taxable income as per the provisions of section 44BB.
In our considered view the contention of learned counsel for the assessee has substance inasmuch as Indian law does not prescribe registration of the Will, it should be in writing, attested by two witness; there is no requirement of any registration or notarization thereof. In this case the Will is in writing and duly attested by two witnesses, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn on the aspect that witness did not advice for registration of the same.
The main issue raised by the DIT(E) is in respect of holding of conference of doctors at a five star hotel and the fact that the donors are pharmaceutical companies and some of them have deducted TDS. Adverse inference has also been drawn from extravagance of expenses the fact that the conference was of doctors and there is no benefit to the common public.
A was the managing director and in terms of the board resolution was entitled to receive commission for services rendered to the company. It was a term of employment on the basis of which he had rendered service. Accordingly, he was entitled to the amount. Commission was treated as a part and parcel of salary and tax had been deducted at source. A was liable to pay tax on both the salary component and the commission. The payment of dividend was made in terms of the Companies Act, 1956. The dividend had to be paid to all shareholders equally. This position could not be disputed by the Revenue. Dividend was a return on investment and not salary or part thereof.
