It is seen from the statement of ‘M’ that the assessee’s name was not mentioned by him at all as beneficiary of the accommodation entry business carried by him. Since despite being obliquely prompted, he did not mention the assessee’s name and merely stated that he did not deal with any ship-breaker and he had given only loan after taking cash and deducting commission.
The Tribunal has not rested its decision on the only circumstance that it is the business of the assessee to collect deposits and, therefore, it was entitled to collect them in cash even if it involves violation of Section 269SS; that is not the substratum of the decision.
On going through the impugned Order of the High Court, we find that no reasons have been given by the High Court for setting aside the re-opening of assessment. In the circumstances, the impugned Order of the High Court dated 23rd December, 2011, in Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration in accordance with law.
It is not denied by the Revenue that U. Mohanrao was the Chairman and Managing Director of some of the companies which got merged with the assessee company. The said U. Mohanrao had access to all information starting from manufacturing process, knowhow to the clientele and the products, including the pricing of the products.
In our view, therefore, once the conditions of further proviso of section 194C(3) are satisfied, the liability of the payee to deduct tax at source would cease. The requirement of such payee to furnish details to the income tax authority in the prescribed form within prescribed time would arise later and any infraction in such a requirement would not make the requirement of deduction at source applicable under sub-section (2) of section 1 94C of the Act.
It is evident from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee was unable to produce confirmations and reconciliations at the time of assessment proceedings and since the details was produced before the CIT(A), the CIT(A), called for the remand report.
Carbon credit is not an offshoot of business but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset is generated in the course of business but it is generated due to environmental concerns. Credit for reducing carbon emission or greenhouse effect can be transferred to another party in need of reduction of carbon emission. It does not increase profit in any manner and does not need any expenses. It is a nature of entitlement to reduce carbon emission, however, there is no cost of acquisition or cost of production to get this entitlement. Carbon credit is not in the nature of profit or in the nature of income.
After withdrawal of circular No. 786 of 2000, vide CBDT circular 7/2009 there is a lot of confusion in mind of exporters relating to deduction tax at source on commission paid to non-resident agents who operates outside India. Further recent ruling by Authority of Advance Rulings (AAR) against the Applicant in case of SKF Boilers and Driers Pvt Ltd [AAR No 983 -984 of 2010] holding that Export commission paid to a non-resident agent is income deemed to accrue or arise in India and liable for deduction of tax has worsened the problem.
Apex Court in the decision reported in CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 that the surrender of tenancy rights amounted to transfer and hence, being a capital receipt, on the facts thus placed before this Court that the amount paid on account of surrender of tenancy rights being given by the assessee to the builder, there is no exchange of one property for the other. Higher depreciation on plastic mould to be allowed only if asset used in a business constituting a separate unit
On a conjoint reading of the provisions of section 69 and section 142A of the Act, it appears that for the purpose of resorting to the provisions of section 142A of the Act, the Assessing Officer would first be required to record a satisfaction that the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account.
