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.
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.
