Provisions of section 12AA, which were inserted w.e.f. 01.04.1997 provides for procedure to be followed for registration under section 12AA. The provisions of section 12AA provides that the CIT shall pass an order in writing either granting or refusing to grant registration under section 12AA, whereas no such specific requirement of passing an order in writing is provided under the provisions of section 12A. Provisions of sub-section 3 of section 12AA provides that registration granted to the trust/institution either under section 12AA after 01.04.1997 or registration granted under section 12A prior to 01.04.1997 shall be cancelled by the CIT by passing an order in writing if the Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institutions are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution.
Giving marketing services outside India, even if we consider it as technical services, nothing was made available to the assessee in the nature of any technical knowledge, experience, skill know-how or processes.
The assessee is an approved Developer of SEZ. The only activity carried on by the assessee is developing a sector specific SEZ. It has leased out the developed plots to the entrepreneurs who had obtained the letter of approval from the competent authority. Sec.80-IAB provides that setting up of a SEZ is the business of developing SEZ. Therefore, the assessee is not expected to perform any other activity than developing of a SEZ to qualify for deduction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the lower authorities are not justified in refusing deduction under sec.80-IAB. The claim of deduction made by the assessee under sec.80-IAB is in accordance with law. The assessing authority is directed to give the deduction.
By virtue of offering personal guarantee and collateral security for the benefit of the company, the liquidity position of the assessee had gone down. In the strict sense if it is to be construed the amount forwarded by the company to the assessee was not in the shape of advances or loans. The arrangement between the assessee and the company was merely for the sake of convenience arising out of business expediency. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to hold that the amount withdrawn by the assessee partakes the character of deemed dividend under the provisions of section 2(22)(e).
Delhi High Court has upheld that ‘payment on account of goodwill is similar to assets like patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences referred to in the definition of the block of assets in the senses that the function of all these assets is to restrict their misuse and to earn maximum profits in the business. The function of goodwill acquired by the assessee also is the same in view of the fact that it maximizes the profits of the company. Since the function of intangibles defined in the Act and the intangible acquired by the assessee is the same, the assets are similar. Therefore, the assessee’s goodwill being a valuable commercial asset similar to other intangibles specified in the definition of block of assets is eligble to depreciation’.
Profitability if considered without considering the positive deviations would lead to impossible profitability positions, which is not what is contemplated under the provisions of 92C. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the ALP by taking into consideration both the net difference on the sale from the AE and purchase from the AE. The Assessing Officer may look into the fact as to the margins of the profits in regard to the transactions done by the assessee with its AE, as also the non-AE transactions and then compute the adjustment of ALP, if any.
Chapter III of DTAA between India and Mauritius did not provide for taxing any fees paid for technical services. Only for a reason that DTAA is silent on a particular type of income, we cannot say that such income will automatically become business income of the recipient. In our opinion, when DTAA is silent on an aspect, the provisions of the Act has to be considered and applied. This aspect has not been dealt with by the authorities below. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this issue requires a fresh look by the A.O.
Here, the payments made by the assessee were to non-residents Indian who were working abroad. Assessee had made no deduction of tax at source whatsoever. As per the assessee, they were working for its business carried on in Nigeria and hence, by virtue of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, the fees payable to such non-residents could not be considered as income accruing or arising to them in India.
In the instant case, the claim of the CIT is that the assessee is the owner of house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalroe and therefore, the said decision is not squarely applicable to the facts of the case. In our considered view, if the house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalore are owned by the assessee’s wife then the same cannot be considered as owned by the assessee for disallowing exemption u/s 54F of the Act.
Assessee here, in our opinion, did fall within the concept of rendering a formal education and could not be equated with a coaching institute. We are, therefore, of the opinion that assessee could not have been denied the eligible exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act for a reason that it was not doing charitable activity as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act.
