The Tribunal, in assessment year 2006-07, in the assessee’s own case and on identical facts/ circumstances, has given a clear finding that the fee received by the assessee for providing marketing and liasioning services cannot be equated with the advisory services given to an investment manager.
There is no right of appeal provided under the statute against the order passed u/s. 264 of the Act. In fact a party to litigation can move to an appropriate forum only when the statute provides for such a right. As can be noticed from section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘CIT’) u/s. 264 of the Act is not appealable before the Appellate Tribunal.
Permission/denial by the RBI to register an assessee as NBFC does not decide the issue of carrying of business or make the business illegal. We hold that the interest income earned by the assessee has to be taxed under the head business income and all the expenses related with it have to be allowed.
Section 1115JB is non-obstante section and a complete code by itself, which provides that in case of a company, the income tax payable on the total income is computed under the Income tax Act in respect of any previous year is less than 7.5% (which percentage has been increased from time to time) of its book profit,
Regarding the treatment of Arranger fees as fees for technical services, we find that the ld. CIT(A) had treated it to be in the nature of service fee for managing and arranging the finance and, hence, it is the consideration for rendering managerial and consultancy services.
In our conclusion, neither the payment of license fees nor the management charges, falls within the ambit and purview of section 44C and, accordingly, the nature of adjustment to the total income for the purpose of disallowance is not required. Thus it is held that license fees and management charges do not fall in the nature of head office expenses u/s.
Whether expenses incurred for maintaining corporate entity & expenditure for day to day functioning of the company are allowable expenses u/s 37 even when no business activity was carried out by the assessee? Whether claim of set off of brought forward losses depreciation brought forward from earlier years should have been allowed?
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd., 345 ITR 270, held that settling claims by making journal entries in the respective books is also one of the recognized modes of repaying loan or deposit. In the absence of any finding recorded in the assessment order or in the penalty order to the effect that the repayment of loan or deposit was not a bona fide transaction and was made with a view to evade tax, the cause shown by the assessee was a reasonable cause and in view of section 273B of the Act, no penalty under section 271 E could be imposed for contravening the provisions of section 269T of the Act.
A distinction to be drawn whether the entire source of income is exempt or only a part of source is exempt. Section 10(38) excludes in expressed terms only the income arising from transfer of Long term capital asset being equity share or equity fund which is chargeable to STT and not entire source of income from capital gains arising from transfer of shares.
Prima-facie, according to the provisions of section 194C r.w. definition given of “work” under the explanation to section 194C, the case of the assessee has to be accepted that assessee could be under bonafide belief for non-deduction of tax from the type of payments upon which it has been held that assessee is liable to deduct tax at source.
