The learned departmental representative submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer disallowed Rs.8,55,58,000/- towards expenditure claimed as reimbursable. According to learned departmental representative the assessing officer also disallowed a sum of Rs.16,69,069/- under the Article 12 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Govt. of India and USA. Referring to the agreement between the assessee and National Highway Authority of India , the learned departmental representative pointed out that the agreement has two parts. The first part contains General Clauses and the second part contains Special Clauses. In the agreement, there was no difference between reimbu
ACIT v. Louis Berger International Inc. (ITAT Hyderabad) – Referring to article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Government of India and USA, the learned counsel submitted that any amount other than the amount received as consideration for services rendered cannot form part of fee for technical service. Therefore, the reimbursable expenditure cannot constitute fee paid/payable for the services rendered by the assessee. The learned counsel submitted that the reimbursable expenditure by the Government or its department cannot be treated as income of the assessee.
The assessee is entitled to deduction on account of R&D expenditure but the same has to be restricted in proportion to the turnover between the agricultural division and the commercial division, and the amount relatable to commercial division can alone be allowed as business expenditure
Only a trust which is for religious purpose is excluded and debarred from registration under section 12AA; a trust whose object is charitable as well as religious is not debarred from registration.
Even after introduction of concept of block assets, identity of the individual assets are not lost and the Assessing Officer can restrict the depreciation having regard to the usage of a plant.
Only in the cases where the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and not prejudicial to the interest of the assessee can be reopened under section 263 and the assessee is not eligible to claim any new benefit in the assessment proceedings pursuant to section 263.
Where the assessee is not able to substantiate his claim of expenditure with any evidence, penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c)
Where the assessee as the owner of the building was only exploiting the property as owner by letting out the same and realizing income by way of rent, such rental income was liable to be assessed under the head `income from house property’
Since Rajendra Nagar Municipality is not notified by the Central Government, the agricultural land falling therein cannot be treated as capital asset by taking the distance from the limits of Hyderabad Municipality.
In our opinion, the Section 269SS and 271D are not applicable to the fact of the case since the assessee in this case received back the money in cash and not advanced money or accepted the loan in cash. The penalty In this case cannot be levied u/s 271D of the Act. for receiving the cash from the borrower, by the assessee.
