We have considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the said order dated 27-05-2011 of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2004-05 & 2007-08 (refer to supra). As it is noticed that the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case (refer to supra) in para 4 & 5 of the said order dated 27-05-11 has taken into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT –vs- Darshan Talkies [217 ITR 744] as also the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No.1689/Kol/2009 dated 26-11-2009 and the tribunal has dismissed the revenue’s appeals [in ITA Nos.2210 & 2211/Kol/2010] upholding the finding of the ld.CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to grant exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T Act, respectfully following the said order/decision dated 27/05/2011 of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2004-05 & 2007-08 (refer to supra) and as also as no contrary view has been taken by any superior authority and no contrary evidence has been placed before us by the revenue, the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stand confirmed. The issues of revenue’s appeal are dismissed.
We find that there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee was a ‘resident but not ordinarily resident’ for the relevant assessment year. The mere fact that she relocated to India on 29th May 2005 does not alter her residential status, so far Income Tax Act is concerned, with effect from that date. Quite fairly, learned Commissioner has also not specifically disputed this position even as he has laid lot of emphasis on the fact that she returned to India on 29th May 2005 and the fact that sale was concluded after that date i.e. 31st May 2005, but then nothing really turns on these facts because whether sales took place after assessee’s relocating to India or not, her residential status continues to be of the ‘resident but not ordinarily resident’ throughout the relevant previous year.
A lot of emphasis has been placed by the CIT(A) on this Tribunal’s decision in the case of TIL Ltd (supra). However, as we have decided the matter on merits and on the first principles, we see no need to deal with the said judicial precedent. Our reasoning could be different than the reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) and that adopted by the coordinate bench in TIL’s case (supra), but then our conclusion is the same as arrived by the CIT(A) and by the coordinate bench. It is this aspect of the matter which is material for the present purposes.
Once under the special provision of section 44AD of the IT Act exemption from maintenance of books of accounts have been provided and the presumptive tax at 8% of the gross receipts itself is the basis for determining the taxable income, the assessee was not under obligation to explain individual entry of cash deposits in the bank unless such entries had no nexus with the gross receipts. In the present case though from the details filed by assessee the ld. AO observed that no TDS has been recovered, in our opinion, since assessee has disclosed the profits more than 8% of the gross receipts and there is no dispute in receipt of the gross receipts the addition made by ld. CIT(A) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act is not sustainable. Therefore we confirm the action of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record, keeping in view of the fact that sufficient opportunity of being heard to AO has not been given by ld. CIT(A) for preparation of Remand Report and further keeping in view of the fact that all the materials placed before ld. CIT(A)has not been sent to AO for his consideration, in our considered opinion, the order of ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of AO to re-decide all the three issues afresh by taking into consideration of the various submissions and documents placed before ld. CIT(A) and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.
Secs. 271C, 271D and 271E, which were inserted in the I T Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, provided for the levy of penalties for certain defaults. Penalty under s. 271C was levied for failure to deduct tax at source. Penalty under s. 271D may be levied for failure to comply with the provisions of s. 269SS i.e. for taking or accepting any loan or deposit in excess of Rs. 20,000 otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft. Penalty under s. 271E may be levied for failure to comply with the provisions of s. 269T relating to repayment by a company, including a banking company, a co-operative society or a firm, of deposits, including interest, exceeding Rs. 20,000/- the aggregate otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft.
The taxpayer adjusted the interest expenditure against the interest income earned. After such adjustment no interest expenditure remained to be disallowed. The taxpayer offered expenditure other than interest of Rs. 111,521 for disallowance under Section 14A of the Act on the estimated basis. The Kolkata Tribunal held that there was no interest expenditure remaining after adjusting the interest credited to the Profit and Loss Account. Therefore, no part of interest paid can be disallowed for earning tax free dividend. Further, expenditure other than interest had been offered for disallowance by the taxpayer under Section 14A of the Act. Therefore, no further disallowance shall be made.
Issue is decided by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virgin Creations that the amendment in the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is remedial and curative in nature and TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, deduction in respect to the amount on which TDS is so paid, is allowable. In the present case the assessee deducted tax in February, 2007 but the same was deposited in May, 2007 for the AY 2007-08 that means the TDS was paid before due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act by the assessee, hence, we allow the claim of assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Living allowance paid in addition to the regular salaries and benefits in India to the employees of Indian Company who are temporarily deployed in US will be exempt from tax. The deputation agreement between the taxpayers and the Indian Company clearly states that the additional compensation in the US has been paid in lump sum without any reference to meet personal expenses at the place where the duties of office or employment were to be performed. The additional compensation received by the taxpayers was in the form of a special allowance or benefit.
Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2003-04 and 2004-05 exactly on the issue of incidental expenses such as freight, octroi and sales tax whether to be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10B of the Act, respectfully following the same and in view of the above discussion carried out, we allow the appeal of the assessee. The revision order of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act is quashed.
