From the perusal of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it is seen that in paragraph 1 the Assessing Officer has mentioned about the receipt of report from the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax indicating that enquiries were initiated by the Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) to probe into bank account which were used by entry operators for the purpose issue of cheques to beneficiaries against cash paid by them.
As far as the present case is concerned, except for stating that they had to make payments to the suppliers and the labours, there is hardly any material available on record to show any justification for receipt of cash over and above Rs. 20,000/- during the course of the year. The assessee admits that they are in the line of business of construction where day in and day out cash payments are made to labourers and to suppliers.
Parliament amended Explanation 1 to section 234B by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from April 1, 2007 to provide along with tax deducted or collected at source, the MAT credit under section 115JAA also to be excluded while calculating assessed tax.
The Tribunal recorded findings that the assessee had produced the return of income filed by the relevant shareholders who had paid share application money. The assessee had also produced the confirmation of share holders indicating the details of addresses, PAN and particulars of cheques through which the amount was paid towards the share application money.
The appellants have undisputedly undertaken booking of tickets during the period 2004-05 for other service providers who are similarly placed as tour operators. They have received consideration from the said tour operators towards the services rendered. This is clearly towards ‘promotion or marketing of services provided by the client’ which is included under the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ in terms of section 65(105)(zzb).
It is an admitted case that the assessee did not file any objection to the said revision and on the other hand, the disallowance of the gratuity provision was accepted by the assessee. Therefore, the levy of additional tax is only a consequential event to the prima facie adjustment, which was carried out through the order passed under Section 154. The Assessing Authority had rightly levied the additional tax by his order under Section 154.
Regarding, the issue of technology transfer fee receipts, whether it constitutes operational income or not, learned counsel brought the analogy of these receipts to the developmental works receipts, which is adjudicated by the hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra). In our opinion, there is a need for finding the fact on the comparability of these receipts on account of developmental work vis-a-vis technology transfer fees raised before us. In case, these receipts are comparable, in our opinion, the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction under section 80HHC as an operational income in view of the finding of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra).
It is not the case of the assessee that payment of such commission is as per prevailing practice of the trade. When supply of goods is made to Government Departments, commission is not allowable unless it is established that commission was paid for services other than services related to supply of goods to Government Department. As regards working of Government Department, we are of the view that public officials are expected to discharge their duties dispassionately, and decide on the merits of each case.
With regard to section 3 of the Act, the informant stated that OP1 (in its board meeting held on 16.04.2012) decided that Joint Plant Committee (JPC) would be collecting and furnishing price data to OP 1 so as to enable it to have a long term pricing methodology. This, along with existence of price parallelism resulted in a collusion under section 3 (3)(a) of the Act.
The appellants shall be eligible for the credit of rent-a-cab service provided, they are able to satisfy that the rent-a-cab service has been utilized for transport of employees/officials or business related visitors to their factory/office. These submissions have not been specifically made before the authorities below, as rightly pointed by the learned Superintendent (AR). Under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to the assessee to produce additional evidence and granting them reasonable opportunity of hearing. All the issues are kept open.
