Appellant had shown receipt of a sum ofRs.45,67,375/- on account of job work from Sunita Crimpers and further receipts of Rs.13,06,422/- on account of labour charges. In the tax audit report it has been mentioned that Sunita Crimpers had made the total payment of Rs.59,29,759/- i.e. a sum of Rs.58,37,799/- should paid on account of job work charges and further a sum of Rs.59,962/- on account of purchase of oil by Sunita Crimpers. It is also a fact that the activity of texturising of yarn was controlled by the Excise and therefore related excise recorded were maintained.
ITAT held that the correct nature of transactions is sale of product and not any fees for technical services requiring deduction of tax at source.
Addition of Rs.19.14 crore has been made on the basis of the assessee’s operating margin from its total operations within and outside India arising due to both the controlled and uncontrolled transactions with the associated enterprises and nonassociated enterprises. The addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment can be made by comparing the assessee’s result from the international transactions with the AEs with those from comparable uncontrolled transactions of outside parties.
The term ‘computer programme’ had not been defined under Section 10B of the Act, however, it had been defined under Section 10BB of the Act as ‘computer programme’ or ‘process’ or ‘management of electronic data’. After the amendment with effect from 1 April 2001, the definition of computer software had been given in the Explanation 2 to Section 10B of the Act which includes any customised electronic data or any product or services of similar nature as notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) which is transmitted or exported from India to any place outside by any means. Therefore, the human resource service in the field of development of software programme as notified falls under the definition of computer programme as stipulated in the Explanation as well as the definition under Section 10BB of the Act.
ITAT held that the proportionate discount on deep discount debentures issued for construction of house property is in the nature of interest as defined under Section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, such interest would be allowable as deduction under the provisions of Section 24(b) of the Act while computing income from house property. The Tribunal relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Madras Industrial Finance Corpn Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) observed that the difference between the issue price and maturity value has to be spread over the debenture holding period. Accordingly, proportionate deduction should be allowed in computing income from house property.
Although interest paid to the head office of the assessee bank by its Indian branch which constitutes its PE in India is not deductible as expenditure under the domestic law being payment to self, the same is deductible while determining the profit attributable to the PE which is taxable in India as per the provisions of article 7(2) & 7(3) of the Indo¬Japanese treaty read with paragraph 8 of the protocol which are more beneficial to the assessee.
From a bare reading of section 139 and 153A , it is evident that the provisions of section 271F are attracted when a person is required to furnish the return in accordance with section 139(1) or by provisos of that section. Section 153A starts with non-obstante clause and the purpose is only to specify separate time limit for filing the return. The only distinction in section 153A is that the AO is required to issue notice to the assessee requiring him to furnish the return within such period, as may be specified in notice, but otherwise the provisions of the Act have been made applicable accordingly, as if such return were a return required to be furnished u/s. 139. Therefore, all the consequences following for failure to file the return u/s.139 will follow u/s.153A also. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT (A) to interfere and, accordingly, uphold the same.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 3.2.2011 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06. The only dispute raised is regarding annual value of second house property which was self occupied by the assessee.
The Ld. Counsel relied on the order of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 5455/M/2010 dt. 12.10.2011 to submit that assessee does not have any other expenditure except to maintain day today activity and the expenditure has no nexus with the earning of tax free income, therefore, disallowance u/s. 14A is not warranted.
It is not in dispute by either of the parties that the provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable. The issue here now remains as to whether advances received towards booking by the various persons in the earlier years and as reflected in the balance sheet are genuine or not. From a perusal of the balance sheet for the earlier years which have been placed in the paper book and as pointed out by the learned Counsel, it goes to show that these liabilities are towards advance booking at the time when appellant tried to carry out the housing project.
