Assessee has objected to the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority and has also filed the valuation report by an Approved Valuer in support of the actual fair market value. The provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 50C, provides that where the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer,
The assessee has made the payment for availing e-mail infrastructure, which is owned by the parent company. It is using this e-mail infrastructure facilities for communication between its employees and outside business partners. Such facilities of secured internet facilities facilitates the day-to-day business operation of the assessee and does not bring into existence any enduring benefit or creation of a new asset to the assessee.
As provided in the said clause, any advance or loan made by a company to a shareholder or concern in which the shareholder has a substantial interest would not be regarded as a deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) if lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the lending company and the loan or advance is made by the lending company in the ordinary course of its business.
The authorities below have held that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions relating to the minimum engagement of workers and use of new plant and machinery in setting up of industrial undertaking as required in section 80-IB(2).
Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s. 33AC on the amount of insurance claim at Rs. 1,29,09,141/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has reduced the repair charges on account of insurance claim receivable during the year
Looking at the issue in any way what is noticed is that the computation made by assessee is in accordance with rule 2 of the Insurance Act, 1938 according to which only Assessing Officer can base his computation. This also corresponds to the way incomes were assessed in earlier years, i.e., the correct method as per rule 2 and section 44.
We find that, the AO accepts that the assessee is an infrastructure developer. But we look into the main objection of the AO that being a developer by itself is not enough to avail the deduction, but the assessee should have maintained, operated and handed it back to the government.
As seen from the provisions, the CIT has no jurisdiction over the TPO administratively and therefore, the CIT could not have revised the order under section 92C(3) passed by the TPO.
High Court of Bombay had upheld the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra), on the ground that there was no substantial question of law involved. Even before Hon’ble High Court there was no question raised that all delivery based transactions have always to be treated as investment activity. Thus the decision of the Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High court in case of Gopal Purohit (supra), cannot be considered as a precedent for the proposition that all delivery based shares have to be treated as investment activity.
Learned DR contended that for providing the said services, managerial skill was also required and even the knowledge of local law was also used by the concerned service provider. In our opinion, merely because some managerial skill is required to render the services, it would not make the services to be managerial services as envisaged in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii).
