In the instant case before us also, the assessee parted with a portion of his commission received from the builder for helping the intending buyers of flats. In other words, the purchasers received discount in the purchase price .There is nothing to suggest that the purchasers of flats rendered any service to the assessee rather the assessee rendered services to the intending purchasers. In the light of view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their aforesaid decision in Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd(supra),especially when the Revenue have not placed before us any material ,controverting the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A) so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A),holding that the provisions of section 1 94H are not attracted while making payments to the aforesaid intending purchasers of flats. Consequently, provisions of sec. 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable.
Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed set off of brought forward business loss against income of Rs. 24,94,407/- for the year under consideration. On perusal of profit and loss account , it was revealed that the assessee earned interest income amounting to Rs. 91,26,226/- from the deposits in the banks and thus, wrongly claimed set off of brought forward business loss against such interest income .
There is no dispute that the case of the assessee does not fall within any of the exception provided in rule 6DD of the IT Rules,1962 nor the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee made any such claim before us. Only plea of the ld. AR is that affidavits furnished by the assessee of six persons placed at page 7 to 12 of the paper book and certain documents were not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Indisputably, in this case a survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 27.2.2007,when certain impounded documents revealed cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- each.
Provisions of section 40(a)(i) as it existed prior to it’s amendment by Finance Act, 2003, with “effect from 1-4-2004 provided for disallowance of payment made to a non-resident only where tax is not deducted at source’ on such payment at source. A similar payment to a resident does not result in disallowance in the event of non-deduction of tax at source, Thus a non- resident left with a choice of dealing with’ a resident for a non-resident in business would opt to deal with a resident rather than anon-resident owing to the provisions of section 40(a)(i).
As regards allegation of Withdrawal of exemption from Import Duty, it has been submitted that import of medical equipment had taken place in 1990 and does not pertain to the period under discussion. The duty exemption was withdrawn citing certain noncompliance, assessee has filed appeal before CESTAT challenging the order of withdrawal and that the assessee has complied with all the terms for exemption. The matter is subjudice before the said Tribunal. However, the machineries imported are used by the Hospital namely remote control X-ray system and whole body C.T. Scan. The exemption is with respect to duty under Customs Act and does not make the assessee non-charitable. It continues to render medical relief.
India does not subscribe to the OECD model; hence, the commentary may have only persuasive value. However, it is needed to examine whether the India office was carrying on any essential and significant part of the activity in the scheme of business of the assessee. The Tribunal concurred with the decision of the case laws relied on by the assessee holding that where the RBI does not find any violation of an condition(s) imposed on its functioning, it shall be presumed to be carrying on preparatory or auxiliary activities until established otherwise. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the HC in the case of UAE Exchange Centre, where it was held that an LO cannot be construed as a PE unless its activities exceeds the permitted activities or the department is able to establish the contrary.
, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in their decision dated 23.11.2011 ITA no. 302 of 2011 GA 3200/2011 in CIT Vs. Virgin Creations, held that that amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 as aforesaid was retrospective from 1.4.2005. The ld. AR pointed out that this is the sole decision rendered by a High Court at the moment on the issue. Following the view in this decision, co-ordinate Bench in their decision dated 11.4.2012 in Piyush C. Mehta Vs. ACIT no.1321/Mum./2009 for the AY 2005-06 and the decision dated 10.5.2012 in ITA no. 717/Bang/2011for the AY 2008-09 in ACIT Vs. M.K. Gurumurthy also held that the aforesaid amendment is applicable retrospectively w.e.f 1.4.2005.
Only grievance of the Revenue is that the amendment brought in the Income Tax Act u/s. 40(a(ia) was only effective from 1.4.2010 and not retrospective in nature. However, we find that in a catena of case laws as mentioned, it has been held that the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) is remedial and curative in nature and has retrospective effect. In this case, admittedly, the TDS deducted was deposited before the date of the filing of the return and under such situation, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). Thus we find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has taken a correct view in the matter, which does not need any interference on our part. Accordingly, we uphold the same.
We have perused form no. 35 i.e. memo of appeal filed by the assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals). In the grounds raised, there is neither any ground nor whisper about not providing sufficient opportunity by AO while framing the assessment. It is further evidenced from the fact that the assessment proceedings commenced on 26- 9-2008 and assessment order has been passed on 10-11-2009 indicating that sufficient time was given to assessee for compliance. Therefore, there is no justification in the averment of assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals) that sufficient opportunity was not given by AO, therefore additional evidence should be admitted. We are constrained to observe that ld. CIT(Appeals) has admitted the additional evidence in a perfunctory manner without appreciating the role of rule 46A and its requirements and verifying assessee’s averments.
From the above note, it is clear that the above equipment primarily include the routers, switches, modems, etc. which are in the nature of input and output support devices which performs the functions including communication and control and, thus, they are computer hardware when they are used along with computer and when their functions are integrated with `computer’. Such devices used as part of the computer in its functions and, thus, it can be termed as `computer’ only, therefore, eligible for depreciation @ 60%. Therefore, also we find no infirmity in the claim of the assessee of depreciation @ 60% of ITG networking equipments.
