In the grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) at ground No. 3 the assessee himself has submitted that the learned AO should have appreciated that during the previous year relevant to the AY 2008-09 the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs paid by the assessee company for deduction of Rs. 15 lakhs in question qualifies for inclusion under the head ‘intangible asset’ as provided u/s 32(1)(ii) and is entitled to a depreciation @ 25% on intangible assets. Hence, we direct the AO to allow depreciation on goodwill at 25% on the intangible assets and with respect to furniture and fittings depreciation to be allowed at 10% since they fall under block of assets as furniture and fittings. The assessee is directed to give bifurcation of good will and furniture and fittings.
This document was seized from the business premises of D. Nagarjuna Rao in course of action u/s 132 of the Act against him. In the impugned assessment order the AO has also observed that the said D. Nagarjuna Rao had admitted that entries in the seized documents were made by him in his own handwriting.
In our opinion, the amount representing 2118.84 is towards investment in share capital of the subsidiaries outside India as the transactions are not in the nature of transactions referred to section 92-B of the IT Act and the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there is no income.
Relying on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal we exclude the Giant Companies namely Wipro and Infosys which are taken as comparables as turnovers of these companies are multiple number of times higher compared to that of the assessee, we hold that the DRO erred in considering their PLI to arrive at the arithmetic mean.
Exemption claimed by the assessee under S.54 of the Act cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee has not utilised the sale consideration received from the sale of flats itself, in purchasing the plot. Law is well settled by the judicial precedents that investment in purchase of pot for construction of house would entitle an assessee to claim exemption u/s.54 or 54F of the Act. Board’s circular No.667 dated 18.10.1993 also says so.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a director in M/s. Veen Promoters Pvt. Ltd. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Act on 14.7.2009 in the case of M/s. Veen Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09 on 31.7.2009 declaring total income
On examining section 54 and 54F, we find that the provision contained u/s 54 including the proviso are parimateria with section 54F of the Act. The proviso to section 54 also lays down that if the amount of capital gain is not utilized towards construction of residential house within a period of 3 years from the date of transfer of original asset, then, it will be charged to capital gain u/s 45 of the Act in the year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of the original asset expires.
A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that an assessee will be entitled to claim deduction under the said provision if he fulfills all the conditions mentioned therein. Clause (a)(ii) of the aforesaid provision, which is relevant for our purpose, provides that in a case where housing project has been approved by the local authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 and has been completed within 4 years
Since the assessee’s operations are efficient enough to obtain more profits and since the receipts are at arm’s length and there is no passing of excess profits by the parent company (AE) to the assessee, the Assessing Officer’s action in restricting the profits is not correct. Also there is no reason to restore it to the Assessing Officer since there is nothing else to examine. Accordingly, grounds of the assessee are allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to treat the profits declared by the assessee as ordinary profits and allow deduction under section 10A, without any further adjustment.
(d) Companies having super normal profit may have to be examined further to determine the reason for the extra ordinary profits. (e) Companies whose employee or directors are involved in fraud should not be accepted as the financial results are not reliable. (f) Companies having the turnover of less than Rs. one crore or more than Rs.200 crores should not be taken as comparables.
