It is seen from the material on record that there is no contract of employment between the assessee-company and non-whole time directors. They were also not paid any fixed remuneration. The Board’s resolution dated May 15, 2002, which has been extracted in the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) provides for payment of remuneration/ commission not exceeding one per cent.
The Assessing Officer has been entrusted the role of an investigator, prosecutor as well as adjudicator under the scheme of the Income-tax Act. If he commits an error while discharging the aforesaid roles and consequently passes an erroneous order causing prejudice either to the assessee or to the State Exchequer or to both, the order so passed by him is liable to be corrected.
There was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer on the issues raised by the CIT in his order u/s. 263 of the Act. The lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer could be very much reason for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act.
The assessee must prove beyond the shadow of the doubt there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the conditions contained in section 269SS of the Act. Circumstances under which the cash was accepted must be explained. Unfortunately no cogent material was produced in that direction.
It is a fact on record that the assessee has adopted the CUP method for computing the Arms’ Length Price for the international transaction entered into by it with its AE for the medical transcription service rendered by it to the AE. In this regard, the assessee has considered two external comparables and three internal comparables.
In the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. (supra) also ITAT, Hyderabad Bench held the similar view. In the present case, the AO has failed to bring any material on record on the basis of which it could be concluded that commission paid to foreign agents is chargeable to tax in India. Unless the income is chargeable to tax in India, then tax is not required to be deducted u/s 195(1). From the facts and materials available on record, no definite conclusion can be made that the commission paid to foreign agents is chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) is not sustainable. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. The grounds raised by the revenue are rejected.
It is also a fact that the assessing officer initiated the recovery proceedings without passing any order on the stay application of the assessee. It is also a fact that the recovery proceedings under S. 220(6) were initiated without attending to or expressly rejecting the stay application filed by the assessee before the assessing officer. In our opinion, this approach is certainly not appreciated.
The first issue before us is whether the assessee is a developer and builder and, thus, entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) qua the Sadguru Krupa Project, or only a Contractor and, thus, not so entitled. No argument, much less materials, has been advanced or adduced before us
The main issue is with regard to allowability of foreign travel expenditure. The assessee claimed foreign travel expenditure at Rs. 20,35,971. As the assessee not furnished details of expenditure relating to business and pleasure trips, the Assessing Officer disallowed 80% of foreign travel expenses at Rs. 16,28,777. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow 1/3rd of the expenditure instead of 1/5th of the expenditure. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us.
Regarding allowability of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad)/(vi), we are of the opinion that there is no allegation that the assessee is not imparting education. The argument of the Department is that some benefit given to the founder member of the trust disables the trust from getting exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad)/(vi).
