Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of R.K. Jain (supra) has observed that in case of search material, the same is to be assessed by way of block assessment under Chapter XIV-B. Similar view is echoed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. M.K. E. Menon and by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in N.R. Paper & Board Ltd. & others (supra). A similar view has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (supra). In view of above, we are of the view that the impugned addition of Rs. 83 lacs cannot be made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis by taking recourse to sec. 143(3). Thus, the additional ground of the assessee is allowed.
Section 14A were introduced with prospective effect from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards. However, sub-section (2) of Section 14A remained an empty shell until the introduction of Rule 8D on 24.03.2008 which gave content to the expression “such method as may be prescribed” appearing in Section 14A(2) of the said Act.
Plain reading of above provisions makes it abundantly clear that for the purposes of section 10A, the eligible business (appellant’s branch office in this case) is to be considered as a separate entity and transfer of goods or services by eligible business to/from other business of the assessee are to be treated as if such transfer has been made to/from an unrelated third party. Therefore, supply of software by appellant’s branch office to appellant’s head office is to be considered as export to an unrelated third party and profits derived by appellant from such export are eligible for exemption u/s 10A of the Act.
Short fall in the market value of securities. – Rs.4,29,64,559.00 – we are of the view that the claim of the assessee could not be rejected merely on the ground that in the books of account the securities were being valued as per the notifications issued by the R.B.I. However, it is not clear from the orders of the lower authorities whether such securities were held by the assessee by way of stock in trade or by way of investment.
At the outset, it was pointed out by the learned AR that the tax effect in the present case is less than Rs. 3 lac. He has produced before us the demand notice according to which the total tax has been computed at Rs. 2,12,781/-. The learned DR could not controvert the quantum of tax effect.
According to well established law, learned CIT (A) is required to dispose of the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine. We also found that the assessee, due to change of her correspondence address, was not actually served with the notices issued by the learned CIT (A).
When the CBDT itself has clarified that the amended provisions of Section 194I relating to deduction of tax at source for the purpose of Section 40(a)(ia) would be applicable for AY 2007-08, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance. We also find that similar issue came up before the learned CIT (A) in AY 2005-06 wherein he accepted the assessee’s contention.
As per sub-section (1) of Section 14A, no deduction is to be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total income. Sub-section (2) of Section 14A provides the procedure for determination of such expenditure by the Assessing Officer. The Board has also prescribed Rule 8D for determining the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning of exempt income. Thus, the disallowance can be made under sub-section (1) for the expenditure incurred for earning of exempt income.
Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of posting advertisement in various publication including newspapers. It has filed its return of income on 29.7.2005 declaring a total income of Rs.45,550. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under sec. 143(2) of the Act dated 26.7.2006 was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, learned Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the receipts appearing in the TDS Certificate vis-à-vis shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account.
Finance Act, 2007 has incorporated third proviso to section 194H stating, ‘no deduction shall be made under this section of any commission or brokerage payable by BSNL or MTNL to their PCO franchisees. The same is relevant for the A.Y. 2008-09. The issue is whether similar exemption is applicable for the assessment year prior to the assessment year 2008-09. This issue was adjudicated in favour of the assessee by co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.71 to 77/PN/2009.
