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.
Mastek Limited Vs. The Addl.CIT ITAT that the taxpayer’s UK subsidiary was not merely undertaking marketing activities. The Tribunal held that the UK subsidiary should be characterised as a distributor on the basis of its agreement with the taxpayer, selling efforts, market and credit risks and overall business strategies. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the reward has to be determined with regard to return on sales rather than a mark-up on value added expenses (marketing and selling expenses).
CIT(A) deleted addition on account of key man insurance policy relying on ITAT|s decision in assessee|s own case for assessment year 2005- 06 in which the Tribunal in ITA No. 1722/Ahd/2008, date 6-3-2009 and held that premium paid under key man insurance policy on the life of the partners cannot be disallowed. Revenue contended that they had not accepted the order of the Tribunal on this issue for assessment year 2005-06 and appeal was filed before the Gujarat High Court. Held: Merely because the department did not accept the order of Tribunal deleting addition on account of key man insurance premium, and preferred appeal before the High Court, it is no ground to take a different view.
