After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record it is observed that the due date for filing the return of income by the assessee under section 139(1) for the relevant year is 30.11.2006. The AO has drawn a chart at page-4 of the assessment order showing the dates of actual deposits and due dates for the said contributions of EPF and ESIC.
Assessee, in fact, was enjoying possession of the impugned property and for peaceful vacation thereof it had received the impugned amount which was described by both parties as amount paid for surrender of tenancy rights. The assessee had acquired the said right long back and the licensor to the assessee also had recognised the said right of the assessee.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the demolition of the building took place at the behest of the assessee and it is not an act of God in which event, it has to be said that demolition of house would fall within the definition of ‘transfer’. This aspect was not properly analysed by the ITAT in the case of co-owner since the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collis (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench. Since this aspect was not looked into by learned CIT(A), we deem it fair and reasonable to set aside the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) who is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law in the light of our above observations.
The case of the assessee is that the assessee being an actor-model rendered modelling services for marketing the products of the assessee-payer of the fee. The services since not rendered for production of cinematographic film, the impugned payments are outside the scope of section 194J of the Act. Taking analogy that the “stunt actor” is not an actor, the modelling actor is also not an actor. The definitions and notifications ought not to be extended to cover the modelling services of this kind. These modelling services are not notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for the reasons better known to them. Therefore, the fee received directly by the Matrix India-a front company, on behalf of the Ms. Katrina Kaif, who modelled for marketing of the camera-products of the assessee-Kodak, does not constitutes professional services as the said modelling/acting is not done in relation to production of cinematographic film and she is not an actor for this purpose of section 194J of the Act.
The Ld. CIT DR made efforts to support the order of TPO on obtaining information. While agreeing with his arguments on power of AO/TPO in obtaining information u/s 133(6), on which there is no dispute, what is objected to by assessee is not providing such information to it.
Regarding, the issue of technology transfer fee receipts, whether it constitutes operational income or not, learned counsel brought the analogy of these receipts to the developmental works receipts, which is adjudicated by the hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra). In our opinion, there is a need for finding the fact on the comparability of these receipts on account of developmental work vis-a-vis technology transfer fees raised before us. In case, these receipts are comparable, in our opinion, the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction under section 80HHC as an operational income in view of the finding of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra).
During the course of assessment proceedings it was observed by AO that the assessee was following ‘exclusive method’ of valuing the cost of its inventory by not increasing it with the amount of excise duty paid thereon, although as per section 145A purchases and inventories are required to be grossed up to include to duty element. That is how an addition of Rs. 1,25,91,360/- was made.
In order to be covered under section 22, it is sine qua non that the assessee must be the owner of the house property as per section 27 read with section 269UA(f). In the instant case, the assessee is not the owner of the property. It cannot also be considered as deemed owner of house property within the meaning of section 27 because it took property on lease for a period of three years. Since the assessee was neither the owner nor the deemed owner of the house property, applying the provisions of section 22, the annual value of such property could not have been charged to tax under the head ‘Income from house property’. As it was a case of simple subletting of property, not facilitating the carrying on of the assessee’s business in any manner, the rental income so realized by the assessee could not be considered as ‘Business income’. In such a situation, the same should be included under the head ‘Income from other sources’. The impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for doing the needful accordingly.
Interest on FD and from bank on surplus funds – Even as admitted by the assessee during hearing, the same is only on surplus funds for the time being and, therefore, cannot be said to be derived from the assessee’s business. The same stands rightly excluded. Sales tax refund and excise duty draw back -As such, section 10B(1) read with section 10B(4) does not admit of receipt, the immediate source of which is not the economic activity itself, but a fiscal incentive, as being profit derived therefrom. Thus, the assessee’s claim in respect of aforesaid items was to be rejected.
Insofar as ground (a) raised by the Assessing Officer that loss on sale of investment of Rs. 6,15,66,000, is a capital loss and is not allowable as deduction, is untenable in law in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court. The Bombay High Court in Bank of Baroda (supra), after following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in UCO Bank (supra), held that the depreciation in value of investments held by a Bank is allowable as deduction as business loss.
