Honourable Madras High Court in case of A.S. Jayakumar (supra) has held that unless there is a proof for extra consideration paid by the purchaser over and above what is stated in the sale deed, section 52(2) of the I T Act cannot be invoked.
Mere crediting of the interest to a reserve cannot be said to be an incidence by which the said interest could be charged to tax. Whatever has been recovered by the assessee has been shown as income. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim of such interest under the provisions of section 43D and the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected simply on the ground that interest had been credited on such type of debts in the reserve account.
Assessee in its transfer pricing study to TPO stated that it has selected CUP method as the primary method in AL analysis. It was also stated that the rate charged to its AEs are same to the rates charged to independent third party who operate in the same geographical region availing similar services. We observe that assessee furnished details of the said working to the TPO.
(i) Principle of mutuality applies under the Act. As such, there can be no deduction of interest paid by Indian branch to head office/other overseas branches. (ii) However, the assessee is entitled to deduction of interest paid to head office/other overseas branches as per the terms of the DTAA.(iii) Mutuality applies in relation to income earned by the Indian branch from head office/other overseas branches. As such the interest income so earned cannot be charged to tax. (iv) Consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) cannot apply.
It is clear from the provisions of Sec. 45(1) , being a deeming provision any gain which has arisen during the year has to be taken for consideration irrespective of the fact that the transferor may receive the sale consideration in subsequent years. Further, the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that in family members cases, for the capital gains arising out of the transfer of shares, the return of income have been accepted by the department under scrutiny assessment, cannot be accepted under the principles of consistency as we are not bound to follow the decisions of the authorities which are inconsistent with the provisions of section 45(1) of the Act.
Tribunal in the case of Ganjam Treading Co. Ltd. (supra) has already considered this situation and held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCL Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra) the disallowance of interest in relation to the dividend received from trading shares cannot be made. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A computed by the A.O. in relation to the stock-in-trade. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is accordingly upheld.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during course of the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has received three residential flats at Hill Park from its sister concern M/s. British India Steam Navigation Co. (BISNCL) which was capitalized in the schedule of fixed assets at Rs. 79,03,460/-.
Rs. 27,650/- was paid by the assessee to various Advocates and Consultants in relation to conferences, advice and consultation pertaining to Income-tax matters, therefore, the said payments do not fall within the purview of section 80VV of the Act. The said section restricts deduction in respect of expenses incurred by an assessee in respect of any proceedings before any Income-tax Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or any Court relating to the determination of any liability under the Income-tax Act by way of tax, penalty or interest. In other words Section 80VV of the Act seeks to restrict the allowance in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in respect of a specific proceeding under the Act. Therefore, the said section has no application.
Disallowance u/s 14A is contemplated in respect of exempt income and not which is eligible for deduction under any relevant provision. It is impermissible to mix both the deduction and exemption provisions and then take them in one stride for computing disallowance u/s 14A.
Learned AR argued that tax free securities were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade and hence the provisions of section 14A cannot apply to disallow any expenditure notwithstanding the fact that the interest income is exempt.
