Short facts apropos are that assessee engaged in the business of transport of spirit and Molasses had acquired a new wind mill during the previous year. The total cost of the wind mill was Rs. 1,58,00,000/- and it was commissioned on 27.03.2005. Since wind mill was used for less than 180 days, depreciation was claimed at 50% of the normal rate.
Expenses having been incurred for the IPO through which assessees were also able to sell their shares, the expenses necessarily were, in our opinion, in connection with sale of such shares. Assessees could take advantage of clause (1) of Section 48 of the Act. Assessees had produced evidence in the form of Escrow Account to show that it had received only net amount after incurring the expenses. Assessees also produced Prospectus of IPO which clearly shows that they were obliged to meet pro rata share of IPO expenses. There is no case for the Revenue that any of the assessees claimed more than their share of expenses based on the ratio of shares sold. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the deduction claimed by the assessees for expenses incurred was unjustly disallowed. This disallowance is deleted.
In this case, the right to receive the brokerage and commission always remained outside India and what was received by the assessee in his Indian bank account is a subsequent remittance of funds from foreign accounts to Indian accounts. As far as the assessee is concerned, the right to receive the income did not arise in India.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1/162 Taxman 465, has considered the period of limitation for the purpose of section 263 in a case where a series of orders were passed by the assessing authority in the case of that assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the period of limitation commenced from the date of the original assessment order, in which the issues sought to be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, have been discussed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the subsequent orders passed by the lower authorities on different dates cannot be relied on by the Commissioner of Income-tax for reckoning the period of limitation. It is, therefore, necessary to see that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the date of that order is to be considered in which the disputed issues have been considered by the lower authorities, at the latest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the period of limitation begins from the original assessment in respect of those items.
When a notification is issued exercising the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 90A of the Act, it can have effect only on those types of agreement mentioned in sub-section (1) thereof. If such a notification goes beyond that mandate, it will have to be ignored to the extent it goes overboard. Even if the term may be taxed has been given a meaning by the Government through a Notification No. 90A(3) of the Act, so as to extend such meaning to terms used in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, it will have to be ignored.
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’.
