There is no dispute with the fact that assessee has commenced business activity during the year. As seen from the nature of the expenditure claim by assessee under the head research expenses, the entire expenditure pertains to use of raw material, freight and other expenditure which are in revenue field and there is no capital expenditure involved nor any capital asset was purchased as part of these expenses. Just because the benefits of research may have some enduring benefit, the expenditure cannot be considered as capital in nature. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd, vs. CIT (supra), we hold that this expenditure is revenue in nature.
In case of securities the ‘date of purchase’ has to be taken from the broker’s note/contract note and the period of holding is also to be reckoned from the ‘date of purchase’ and not from the ‘date of dematerialization’. Since the holding period of the shares as per the broker’s note and its subsequent sale after dematerialization is more than 12 months, the shares become long-term capital asset and the assessee’s claim of long-term capital gain is correct.
A plain reading of document on records demonstrate that FADV-US is acting as an agent of the assessee for various purchases/ upgrades. This cannot be a reimbursement. It is purchase on behalf of the assessee. In other words, what can be said is that the assessee has routed its purchases through FADV-US. Such routing of purchases cannot be called as reimbursement of expenses.
Agility Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT As the facts in issue for the year under appeal are identical with facts of the AY 2004 -05 & 2005 -06, respectfully following the decisions of the tribunal mentioned here in above in the appellants own case for the AY 2004 -05 & 2005 -06, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee and hold that the additions on account adjustment in arm’s length price to the tune of Rs.110700000.00 is uncalled for and accordingly the adjustment is rejected on the facts of the case discussed here in above .
With regard to the first issue the AO was under the wrong impression in treating the reimbursement of ‘scheme expenses’ as provision for expenses whereas the fact remains that the expenses were crystallized and it was paid immediately after the end of the financial year and similar expenses were allowed as eligible for deduction in the subsequent year. With regard to applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act also, the learned CIT(A) gave cogent reasons in holding that provisions relating to TDS are not applicable and on similar issue the matter was decided in favour of the assessee in respect of A.Y. 2007-08.
DCIT v. Enpro Finance Ltd Clause-b of sub section (1) of section 54G does not use its specific phrase ‘for the purpose of its business of under taking’ except that the business should be in non-urban area. Therefore, it can be interpreted that assessee should carry on any business in non urban area. If the amounts are utilized for acquisition of assets for the purpose of its business, this should qualify for the purpose of exemption under section 54G as there is no requirement that the land and building should be used for the purpose of the business of industrial undertaking.
Even though assessee is following the cash system of accounting, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax. v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co, 46 ITR 144 relied on by the Counsel before the Bench that mere advance received does not partake the character of income, it is necessary to examine whether the advances are in the nature of revenue receipt or not. Not only that the amounts accrued to the applicant out of the advance received in the assessment year 2005-06 were already transferred to professional income and were assessed as such.
Assessee contended that it is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 54EC of the Act even while computing book profit chargeable to tax under section 115JB of the Act. The Bench, while passing the order, followed the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court to hold that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 54EC of the Act while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act.
Tata International Ltd vs. DCIT – It is an undisputed fact that the reasons actually recorded by the Assessing Officer were not furnished to the assessee till 14.06.20012 despite repeated requests and demands and therefore, the gist of reasons as furnished vide letter dated 28th June 2007 cannot be treated as reasons actually recorded by the Assessing Officer as per section 148 (2) and as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). Thus, the Assessing Officer has failed to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment within the reasonable time and rather prior to the completion of assessment, than the reassessment order passed without supply of reasons as recorded for reopening of the assessment, is invalid and cannot sustain.
Adverting to the present case, it is clearly evident that ‘reasons recorded’ were not provided to the assessee despite categorical directions by the ITAT and even when the so-called “reasons recorded” have been supplied after a gap of almost 11 years, it is amply clear from the face of it that the ‘reasons’ were not recorded prior to the issuance of notice under Section 148.
