We agree with learned counsel for the respondent Board that the alibi, that appellant does not understand English is not acceptable as he has given all his information in the KYC form in English and has also signed the said application form in English. His reply dated January 27, 2009 to the show cause notice is also in English where he has admitted the trades and claimed that they were entered in the normal market condition and on the basis of price prevailing in the market at the time of trading.
At time when query was raised under the head ‘Selling & Distribution Expenditure’, had there been insistence that TDS was required to be deducted and the amount specified to the tune of Rs. 22,70,869 was not required to be allowed as Trade Incentive without deducting TDS, the same ought to have been reflected somewhere in the computation of income and that would have bearing on the computation itself.
The ratio based on areas developed in SEZ and outside SEZ is not a good criterion for the purpose in question for various reasons. In the first place, Revenue will not be able to do verification of the measurements considering the activity involved vis-a-vis amount of refund to be granted. Further the quality of development and facilities provided inside SEZ and outside SEZ are likely to be very different.
Normally where a transaction is undertaken by a person who is a businessman, the question as to whether investment in shares is an income from the line of business could be taken as adventure in the nature of trade and it should not pose a problem, since such transactions would be either incidental or ancillary to the business, although the transactions undertaken may not have a direct bearing to the business already undertaken by the assessee.
Coming to the applicability of most appropriate method, both the parties have agreed that TNMM Method should be most appropriate method for benchmarking the ALP. The contention of learned CITDR is that before the TPO, even though this plea of applicability of TNMM Method was taken by the assessee by way of corroborated method, has neither considered the same nor examined it properly.
Tribunal has held that although the documents are not in the name of the assessee’s factory but same are in the name of the head office of the assessee and there is no dispute about the input service received by the assessee. Therefore, substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds.
The assessee, a chamber of commerce and industry, in the course of pursuing its objects rendered several services, such as, certification, committee room services, secretarial services and facilities, energy audit, etc. to its members and non-members for a fee. It was registered under section 12A. From the assessment year 1996-97 up to the assessment year 2005-06, it was granted exemption under section 11.
In the instant case, while referring to the proviso in the newly inserted provisions of section 201(3) introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1-4-2010, the Assessing Officer concluded that he was competent to pass such orders for the aforesaid financial years at any time on or before 31-3-2011 while the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn. [2008] 305 ITR 137and CIT v. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 230 (Delhi) held that the order dated 27-4-2010 passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation.
As regards the method to be adopted for comparability analysis, the contention of the revenue that CUP is the most appropriate method in the facts and circumstances of the case especially when internal comparables are available for the comparability analysis, has to be accepted. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the action of the Assessing Officer/TPO in adopting CUP method for comparability analysis instead of TNMM applied by the assessee.
In the instant case, the assessee-trust is carrying on various activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business and rendering its services for the purpose of trade, commerce and business, because it is charging huge fees on account of various facts. No doubt, the assessee has given some explanation for charging fees by stating that it is charging fees as per rules framed by the Punjab Local Bodies Govt., which is clearly the admission by it that it is doing activities not for charitable purpose but for business purpose only.
