It is a fact that the assessee was employed as ‘Service Provider’ and during the period under dispute he was providing the service from Bangalore in India. As per the Co¬operation agreement dated 14.12.2004 entered into between the assessee and the Polish Company, the function of the assessee was ‘to support establishing and preparing organization of the company’s representative office in India by the date of 31st May 2005’. We are of the view that the function to support establishing and preparing organization can at best be termed as a management function but cannot be equated with ‘Top Level Managerial Position’.
Section 54EC clearly states that the investment in specified bond is to be made “within a period of six months after the date of such transfer. The intention of the legislature is clear. It was not desired by them to give the exemption u/s 54EC even investment made before the transfer of the long term capital assets. There is no direct case law of Section 54EC for claiming of exemption even investment made before, has been brought in the knowledge of the Bench.
Statute has either mentioned that the date on which the order sought to be appealed should be the date of communication, or the date when the order is served or the date of service of the notice of demand. However, the Statute has not given any such indication while drafting the language of section 254(2) of the I.T.Act rather it has plainly mentioned, without any ambiguity, that the Appellate Tribunal may at any time within four years from the date of the order shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee.
The instant case is that of the partner and therefore what is to be examined is whether the share income is excluded from his total income. The answer is obviously in the affirmative. In such a situation, provision contained in section 14A will come into operation and any expenditure incurred in earning the share income will have to be disallowed. section 14A uses the words expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income. A statutory allowance under section 32 i.e. Depreciation is not an expenditure.
Explanation-3 to section 43(1) says that where the AO is satisfied that the main purpose of the transfer of such assets to the assessee was the reduction of liability to income tax by claiming depreciation with a reference to an enhanced cost, then the actual cost to the assessee shall be such an amount as the AO may determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
In terms of the provisions of section 194C(2) as clarified by the Board vide its Circular No. 715, dated 8-8-1995, conditions to be satisfied are (i) that the assessee should be a contractor, (ii) that the assessee should enter into a contract with a sub-contractor, (iii) that the sub-contractor should carry out any part of the work undertaken by the contractor and (iv) that the payment should be made for the work done. In a case, when a ‘contract’ is assigned, generally the clauses are stringent that the contractor is to be responsible for all the acts and defaults committed.
Due consideration of the provisions of s.37 and s.40(a)(ii) of the Act as well, it emerges that u/s 37, all taxes and rates are allowable irrespective of the place where they are lived i.e., whether on Indian soil or offshore, whereas u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Act, income-tax which is a tax leviable on the profits and gains chargeable under the Act is deductible.
The issue involved in the present appeal has now been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgin Creation in GA No.3200/2011 dated 23-11-2011 against the Revenue. However, it is noteworthy that the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.2404/Mum/2009 in order dated 12-09-2011 has taken a view that the amendment is prospective in nature and would apply accordingly. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creators (supra) the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance of Rs.3,69,568/- as made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
For application of Sec.50C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both. If the capital asset under transfer cannot be described as land or building or both then section 50C will cease to apply. From the facts of the case narrated above, it is seen that the assessee has transferred booking rights and received back the booking advance. Booking advance cannot be equated with the capital asset and therefore section 50C cannot be invoked.
It is clear from this proviso that where assessee transfers his capital asset after 30th September of the financial year he gets an opportunity to make an investment of Rs.50 lakhs each in two different financial years and is able to claim exemption upto Rs.1 Crore u/s 54EC of the Act. Since the language of the proviso is clear and unambiguous, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee is entitled to get exemption upto Rs.1 Crore in this case. Since the wording of the proviso to section 54EC is clear, the benefits which are available to the assessee cannot be denied. In view of above, it is hereby held that the assessee is entitled for exemption of Rs.1 crore as six months’ period for investment in eligible investments involved is two financial years.
