The dispute is regarding addition of Rs.14,60,052/- made by AO on account of unsecured loans from Shri Balwantbhai Grewal. There is no dispute that the said amount had been shown as loan in books of account of the assessee. Assessee could not produce any evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal who lived in UK and genuineness of transaction. Subsequently before CIT(A), assessee submitted that the amount had been wrongly entered in books and the same related to transaction of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal with the sister concern M/s. Kaypan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.
Assessee is an agent of Government of Maharashtra and also considering the fact that Hon’ble High Court granted stay to the assessee for the recovery of the demand when the appeal was pending before ld CIT(A), we hold that the assessee has a prima facie case for grant of stay for recovery of the dues pending disposal of appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we grant stay for recovery of the demand for A.Y. 2006-07 for a period of 6 months or till disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier.
In the case of JB Greaves (supra), which is the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, it has been held that the subject – matter of appeal before the Tribunal would be the grounds raised by the appellant before it. Rule 11 provides that the appellant shall not except by the leave of Tribunal, be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal.
It is observed that the assessee capitalized the expenses in relation to Cafeteria project as capital work in progress in earlier year. Such project did not take off and eventually the assessee claimed it as a business loss in the current year. It is clearly borne out from records that the assessee claimed deduction by disclosing complete particulars in this regard. Simply because the assessee did not succeed in the first appeal on this issue, it does not mean that penalty will be automatic.
Registration granted under section 12A, on 12th February 1996, and the benefits flowing therefrom, cannot be extended to the amended objects of the society unless the DIT examines the same and comes to a conclusion that the registration under section 12A, can be extended to the revised objects, memorandum and by-laws. It would be illogical to hold that once an institution is registered under section 12A, no matter whatever may be the changes in the objects, rules and regulations, for any number of times, the institution should be given the benefit of section 11 to 13 of the Act, in view of the original registration granted under section 12A.
The provisions of section 163 of the Act do not require that, the liability of the non-resident to pay tax should be established before initiating proceedings under section 163 of the Act on a person to treat it as the agent or representative assessee of the non-resident. The purpose of section 163 of the Act was to enable revenue authorities to proceed and impose a vicarious liability on a person regarded as agent, in an event when income was found to be taxable in the hands of the non-resident.
In this case, M/s Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd , a tax resident of UK, was denied the benefit of setting off of the business loss from sale of shares against the income from other sources by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on the ground that the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India as per Article 5 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement . The Honourable Mumbai Tribunal observed that the assessee chose to be ruled by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not DTAA. Thus, the AO was not justified in directing that the business loss should be considered as per provisions of DTAA and therefore taxing the income from other sources without allowing its set off against the business loss.
Agreement between the assessee and the Non Resident is only for rendering services which cannot be considered as technical services and as there is no PE to the said non resident in India, the amount does not accrue or arise in India and further as there is no need for deducting the amount under section 195, there is no violation of provisions of section 195 and accordingly the same cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia).
I.T.O. Vs. L’oreal India P. Ltd. – ITAT acknowledged the fact that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is one of the standard methods in case of distribution and marketing activities i.e. when goods are purchased from Associated Enterprises (AEs) and sold to unrelated parties.
Section 40 is applicable only when deductions under Sections 30 to 38 are being made in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession under Section 28. The exception in Section 40 is carved out, only for the purpose of Section 28 and not for computing the exemption of income of a charitable trust under Section 11.
