We find that when a person was allowed to act as sub broker, he was initially allowed to issue even a contract note to his clients. Moreover, such sub broker could receive payments from clients and make payments to clients from his accounts. This position was changed vide Circular No. 9 (SEBI/MRD/MIRSD/DPS-1/CIR-31/2004) dated 26th August, 2004 as noted by the AO. But by this change assessee could still act as a remisier and the only restriction is that now he cannot issue the contract note for any transaction which has to be issued by the main broker. Even the payments were to be received and made by the main broker. However, assessee still remained entitled to his commission which was to be shared by the main broker with such remisier. Therefore, the assessee even after the change of regulation could have still acted and could have shared the commission with the main broker i.e. Sharekhan or he could have changed his broker or even he could have himself become a member of the stock exchange because he had a large client basis. Simply because assessee preferred to sell his business along with tangible assets would not mean that the agreement would become that of an agency. It still remained an agreement between a principal to principal. Therefore, in our opinion, it is a clear case of sale of assets and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and accordingly we confirm his order.
Claim for deduction under Section 80IB cannot be denied in this year based on the findings given by the Assessing Officer or by the virtue of surrender of claim before the Assessing Officer. It is a duty casts upon the Assessing Officer or to the appellate court to see that if a deduction or a claim for exemption is statutory allowable, then the same has to be allowed, if the assessee fulfils the prescribed conditions required under the statute.
In the instant case, the property in question is residential house, which has not been let out or used for the purpose other than residential. Therefore, even though the assessee did not stay in the house so long, this house is exclusively for residential purpose. Therefore, the conditions as enumerated in the third proviso to rule 3 are satisfied.
When the assessee is not in the business of leasing out of the property and the intention of letting out the premises in question was not to exploit the business assets in relation to the business of the assessee then the said property would not fall under the exception as provided u/s 2(ea)(i)(5) of the W T Act being commercial establishment or complex.
In the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2011] 12 taxmann.com 309/201 Taxman 237 of Uttarakhand High Court (Uttarakhand), it has been observed that a jurisdictional Commissioner is not to be nominated as a member of the DRP under rule 3(2) of the Rules. By doing this, the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done would be ensured. In the instant case, there was no dispute that one of the members of DRP was the DIT (TP-I)/jurisdictional Commissioner of the assessee when the draft assessment order was passed. Therefore, there was merit in the submissions of the assessee that the order passed by the DRP is liable to be set aside as the same is contrary to the observations of the High Court of Uttarakhand.
DDIT V. Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is a non-resident company having its principal place of business at Honkong and the various Channel Companies are also non-resident companies based in Honkong. Hence, the payment in question is made by a non-resident company to a non-resident company. In the return of income, while computing the taxable income, the assessee has shown his taxable income and also claimed deduction of the cost of advertising airtime procured from the Channel Companies on principal-to-principal basis outside India.
Here, we are concerned with the meaning of term fees for technical services as given in para 4 of Article 12. The FTS has been defined as the payment of any amount in consideration of service for ‘managerial’ or technical’ or ‘consultancy in nature, which is quite similar to definition given in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii). Looking to the nature of services provided by the assessee as has been described above, it is amply evident that it is mostly in the nature of ‘audit work’ wherein the auditors of the assessee visit the sites of the client’s and evaluate the clients quality system as prescribed in International Standard for ISO 9001/2, ISO 14001, QS 9000 etc.
ITO V. Shakti Insulated Wires (P.) Ltd. We are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has wrongly considered the facts available on record and without understanding the details of purchases and its availability in closing stock, made the disallowance on flimsy grounds. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld CIT (A).
ACIT v. Deepak S. Bheda The Assessing Officer denied the benefit claimed by the assessee under section 54 EC towards the investment made in REC bonds for a sum of Rs. 50 lakh out of total long-term capital gain of Rs. 3.40 crores. The Assessing Officer was of the view that once the exemption has been claimed under section 54F and the entire capital gain has not been utilised for the purchase of residential house, then the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of new asset and also not deposited in the banks or institution as specified and notified in the official Gazette by the Central Government as per the provisions of sub section (4) of section 54F, the assessee cannot avail the exemption under section 54 EC.
These appeals involving certain common grounds regarding interpretation of section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and claimed for deduction under section 80-IA (4) of the Act. The same are being discussed by us with reference to the facts of the case for assessment year 2004-2005 in the case of Allcargo Global Logistics Ltd.
