The view of the Larger Bench that the assessee had to be directly engaged in developing, maintaining and operating the facility and that there had to be a complete development of the facility and not just a part of it is contrary to the law laid down in ABG Heavy Industries 322 ITR 323 (Bom). The High Court held that The assessee did not have to develop the entire project in order to qualify for a deduction under s. 80-IA. The Parliament did not legislate a condition impossible of compliance.
Admittedly the assessee is involved in the manufacturing activity also and marketing its own products i.e. iron powder. Apart from that, the assessee is importing iron product and marketing the same that is a trading activity. Nothing has been brought out on record by the DRP as well as the TPO that the assessee has to incur cost for the sales achieved by the parent company as in the case of its own marketing.
In the present case, as we have noted earlier, it is only on account of the manufacturing activity that the activity of commissioning and installation of the equipment arises and pertinently all the aforesaid activities are negotiated and contracted for at one instance.
Flat purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife out of the sale consideration of flat in the name of the assessee should be considered as allowable deduction u/s.54(2) of the Income Tax Act.
In initial years the assessee had lesser requirement of these spools as the business was in the process of being established and stabilized. The system of collecting these spools also had to be put in place and stabilized to ensure its supply on a sustained basis. The system adopted by the TPO to allocate indirect expenses on the basis of turnover in initial assessment years was not justified. There was nothing on record to suggest any indirect expenses for determining the ALP of export of spools. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in restricting the addition to Rs. 5,07,651 as there was no element of indirect cost involved.
As per the agreement, assessee was responsible for updation of patches of the software and provision of backup and recovery services in respect of data stored on the centralised server. The responsibility of the assessee is to maintain and upkeep of the centralised server owned by it. Assessee has not imparted any technical know-how, skill, process or technical plan or design and hence, in view of Art 12(3)(g), the amount received by the assessee cannot be taxed in India.
The allowance of any expenditure arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the ALP. However, in the instant case the assessee has not claimed the expenditure of Rs. 7,42,20,575/- during the impugned assessment year and has itself disallowed the same while computing its taxable income. Therefore, we agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 92 are not applicable.
In our considered opinion, reliance placed by the Revenue on clause (d) to sec. 80-IB(10) of the Act to defeat the assessee’s claim for deduction in the present case is quite misplaced. Firstly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra) has laid down that the said provision is prospective and not retrospective in nature and therefore, it cannot be applied retrospectively. Further, the plea of the Revenue that only a pure housing project is eligible for deduction is also completely misplaced having regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra).
Assessee was engaged in the speculation transaction of sale and purchase of units without taking delivery and the account was settled by crediting the difference. The Tribunal after considering section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 observed that no property in the said units passed on to the assessee inasmuch as the assessee never acquired the property in the units as the units contracted to be bought were future unascertained goods. Similarly, it could not pass on the property to the party to whom the units were contracted and therefore, there was no ‘sale’ or ‘turnover’ effected by the assessee in the legal sense for the purposes of getting the accounts audited under section 44AB.
First is the issue of entertainment expenditure. The stand of the assessee is that the provisions of FBT can be invoked in respect of expenses which are incurred on employees or their family members but in the present case, as mentioned on page No.5 of the paper book, the entertainment expenses have been incurred for guests of the company, which has not been disputed by the Revenue. So same are not liable to be subjected to provisions of section 115WB(2) of the Act.
