The assessee, an Indian company, advanced interest-free loans to its 100% foreign subsidiaries. The subsidiaries used those funds to make investments in other step-down subsidiaries. On the question whether notional interest on the said loans could be assessed in the hands of the assessee under the transfer pricing provisions of Chapter X
S. 153A provides that where a search is initiated u/s 132 the AO shall assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made. The 1st Proviso states that the AO shall “assess or reassess the total income
and contributed by the assessee to a firm towards capital contribution should be treated as stock in trade even during the course of making the transaction of transferring or contributing the land to the partnership firm as capital contribution, the surplus arising to the assessee from the said transaction of contributing stock in trade
From the above facts, it is clear that Once the society during a period of almost 12 years has not carried out any activity, except purchasing land, to construct school/college building for imparting education, which was the main object of the society the activities of the trust for granting approval under section 80G cannot be called genuine and the CIT was fully justified in refusing to grant approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act. Hence, the order of Commissioner of Income-tax is upheld and consequently the remaining grounds of appeal taken by the appellant society stand rejected.
In the case of Schefenacker Motherson Ltd v. ITO, ITA No. 4459/DEL/07 for AY 2003-04 and schefenacker Motherson Ltd v. DCIT, ITA No.4460/DEL/07 for AY 2004-05, the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), held that cash profit on sales “CP/Sales” or cash profit on total cost excluding depreciation “CP/TCdep”
The assessee was engaged in the business of real estate development. It held land as stock in trade with a book value of Rs. 4.4 crs. The said land was introduced at its market value of Rs. 11.50 crs as capital contribution into a new firm. The surplus of Rs. 6.01 crore was credited to the profit and loss account. Relying on Hind Construction 83 ITR 211 (SC), it was claimed that the surplus of Rs. 6.01 crs was not liable to tax as the introduction of an asset into a partnership was not a sale.
The income attributable to the operations of developing/producing breeder seeds or hybrid germplasm or parent hybrid seed containing desired traits cannot be treated as agricultural income and should be treated as business income.
. In view of the above decision, the company whose principal business is that of granting of loans and advances, may earn a comparatively high income from some other activity in a particular year, merely because the income/loss from share trading in the year under consideration is higher than the interest income,
In view of the above, the grievance of Pride Foramer against being treated as an agent of the expatriate personnel under section 163 of the Act is found to be of merit and it is accepted as such.
In fact, the assessee has borne part of the advertisement expenditure which was to be borne in full by the Indian franchises. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that section 92 is not applicable with regard to the advertisement expenditure.
