We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited. The reopening of assessments in the instant case is decidedly before the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, so that the first proviso to s. 147 is not applicable.
Regarding disallowance of foreign travelling expenses, it is seen that on similar circumstances and facts, the Assessing Officer has disallowed 4% of the expenditure claimed which was based on ratio of such expenses with export sales. Thus, such a view taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be disturbed without any difference in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The proposition that gain on foreign exchange if it relates to the business of the assessee is part and parcel of operating income is well established by the afore-mentioned decisions of the coordinate benches. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the gain made by the assessee on fluctuation of foreign exchange was not on account of business transactions of the assessee. In absence of any such material, following the afore-mentioned decisions of the Tribunal, it has to be held that the foreign exchange gain of the assessee is to be considered as part and parcel of the profit of the assessee and therefore should be included for the purpose of computing the profit margin of the assessee.
The first comparable taken by the TPO is CRISL Research and Information Services Ltd. The said comparable is common as the assessee has also selected the same in its original TP study. Though CRISL Ltd is basically a rating agency; however, since the segment results relating to the research activity has been taken into consideration; therefore, the other activity being rating agency does not effect the comparability solely because of this fact. The ld Sr counsel for the assessee has pointed out that about 60% of the income of the CRISL Ltd is from the related party transactions. This is a material fact that has to be considered for the purpose of selecting the uncontrolled comparable transactions as per sec. 92C(1) r.w.r 10B(1)(e) for the purpose of determination of ALP.
The next question that arises is that as to the allocation, if so, of the expenditure, when the returns as per the investment strategy adopted is toward and, consequently, bound to be earned under different income heads, being ‘capital gains’ and ‘income from other sources’ in the instant case, and while being allowable in one case (the latter), is not so under the other (the former).
Tribunal referred to a book titled Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs by P. Narayanan wherein it was stated in paragraph No. 17.02 that a cinematograph film depicting live events like sporting events, horse race, etc. cannot infringe any copyright because there is no copyright in live events. The Tribunal held that there is thus no copyrights in the live events and depicting the same cannot infringe any copyright.
The Senior Counsel argued at length, whether such non compete right constitute is a right in rem or otherwise, is a matter to be decided by an appropriate higher judicial forum. In the instant proceedings, we cannot import the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smifs (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that goodwill was an intangible asset and eligible for depreciation.
We have applied the above ratio to the facts of the instant case and find the two flats in question are not adjacent and they are not functionally one residential house with two adjacent units. Revenue has not brought any contrary decision to our notice. Considering the settled nature of the issue, we are of the opinion, the order the CIT(A) does not call for any interference on this issue.
As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the assessee, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is well reasoned and well discussed on this issue and the same is self explanatory as regards the reasons given by him for deleting the additional disallowance of Rs. 5,98,139 made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A. As held by him relying on the decision of the hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra), rule 8D applied by the Assessing Officer to work out the disallowance under section 14A was not applicable to the year under consideration.
Facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee has paid the amount of service tax of Rs. 41,97,663/- before the due date of filing of return, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the said disallowance. As regards other disallowance of service tax payable Rs. 48,10,998/- we find merit in the plea of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in Pharma Search (supra) wherein the Tribunal after considering the decision of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 385 (Cal.), Real Image Media Technologies (P.) Ltd. (supra) and other decisions held as under:-
