Agility Logistics (P.) Ltd. V/s. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Mere addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment cannot automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)
It is very sad that AO without following the principles of natural justice and inspite of clear findings of the ITAT in the order dated 18.06.2010 has repeated the same orders as was done originally way back in 1998. Inspite of levying the cost of 5000/- on AO, which we were informed was paid to assessee, there is no change in the attitude of the Revenue with reference to assessees/assessments are concerned. By taking up the assessment at the fag end of the time barring period and by denying natural justice and not considering the evidence on record, assessees were forced to file appeals before the ITAT unnecessarily by incurring heavy cost of not only appeal fees but also engaging Counsels to defend the case. There should be an end to this sorry state of affairs.
Payments made for transmission of electricity by the transmission lines owned by PGCIL do not constitute payment for rent under section 194-I, it is not really necessary to go into this aspect of the matter. The question as to whether the definition of expression rent, introduced in section 194-I with effect from July 2006, is prospective or clarificatory is also, given our findings that, even on the touchstone of the definition of rent under the aforesaid provision, the payment for transmission of power will not constitute rent, not really relevant in the present context, and we see no need to deal with the same either.
With reference to the income treated as’income from other sources’, the CIT (A) analyzed the position of the income and noticed that it comprises of bad debts, miscellaneous receipts written back which were to be taxed under section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. With reference to the gratuity written back, he observed that assessee made provision for gratuity in earlier years which was not allowed as expenditure. Hence the write back of the same cannot be considered as income.
Whether the exemption u/s 54 will be available, in case, capital gain arising from sale of more than one residential house, is invested in one residential house. The ld. counsel appearing for the assessee argued that there was no restriction under section 54 that capital gain arising from two residential houses cannot be invested in one residential house. We find substance in the argument advanced by the Id. counsel for the assessee.
The Assessing Officer had considered that a common shareholder ‘P’ has substantial shareholding of more than 10 per cent. While analyzing substantial interest, the Assessing Officer has only considered Explanation 3 with reference to a person having beneficial interest entitled to not less than 20 per cent of income of such concern so as to attract provisions of section 2(22)(e). However, the Assessing Officer has not examined definition given in section 2(32) with reference to company which has a substantial interest in company, wherein it was specifically mentioned of carrying not less than 20 per cent of voting power. Admittedly, ‘P’ has less than 20 per cent shareholding in both companies, i.e., assessee as well as ‘A’. Therefore, reasoning given by Assessing Officer of a common shareholding by ‘P’ does not hold good. Further, it is an admitted fact that assessee is not owning any share in ‘A’ and provisions of section 2(22)(e) do not apply unless assessee is a shareholder in the company. For both the reasons, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was to be upheld.
RL is a tax resident of Mauritius and in support of this, tax residency certificate has been furnished. This fact has also been accepted by the learned DR in the written submission. It is also undisputed fact that, based on this tax residency certificate, the RL has applied for exemption certificate for grant of 100% DIT relief, which was granted by the Assessing Officer vide certificate dated 9-6-2000 upto the period of 31-3-2001 i.e. upto AY 2001-2002 (copy of which has been placed in the assessee’s paper book at page 5 filed on 8-11-2009). It was based on this certificate, that the assessee had sought tax relief in the return of income.
Learned counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that identical issue has come up in the case of Ramesh D. Tainwala in ITA No. 3853/Mum/2010 wherein the ITAT “D” Bench Mumbai concluded that provisions of section 28(va)(a) would apply and consequently the amount received by that assessee would be chargeable to tax as business income and not under the head capital gains.
This Miscellaneous application has been filed by the assessee requesting for recall of the order dated 24.9.2010 of the Tribunal in ITA No.6830/M/05. Apparent mistakes have been pointed out in relation to grounds at Sl.No.(A), (D) and (I) raised by the assessee in the appeal.
If cost of asset not doubted in earlier years, it can’t be held as sham if sold to parent co. at nil profit Transfer of shares held as investments by subsidiary to overseas parent co. at cost of acquisition is not a sham nor colourable device
