The assessee received a donations which was not anonymous donations within the meaning of Section 11(3) of the Act because the receipts issued by the assessee trust were still in the custody of the department as the receipt books were impounded in the course of the survey and no confirmations were required to be filed by the assessee.
A perusal of the above contents of the written submissions filed by the assessee before the TPO shows that the data was provided by the assessee before the TPO concerning the international transaction pertaining to availing of intra group services by the assessee from its associate enterprises.
In the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. (supra) also ITAT, Hyderabad Bench held the similar view. In the present case, the AO has failed to bring any material on record on the basis of which it could be concluded that commission paid to foreign agents is chargeable to tax in India. Unless the income is chargeable to tax in India, then tax is not required to be deducted u/s 195(1). From the facts and materials available on record, no definite conclusion can be made that the commission paid to foreign agents is chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) is not sustainable. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. The grounds raised by the revenue are rejected.
In proceedings under Article 226, and that whether the presumption of liability can be rebutted under Section 179 has to be gone into before the tax authorities. Nonetheless, the Court here has to deal with the assessee’s fundamental argument that he is not liable to pay anything more than the tax (i.e. not liable to pay penalty or interest).
It is to be noted that a settlement is an admixture of gift or partition or trust. In law, a family arrangement/settlement is accepted as a transfer of interest in the property in favour of an individual between whom the family arrangement or settlement is so made. Just because a deed/instrument answers the description of a ‘Trust Deed’, it does not cease to be a ‘settlement’ for the purpose of stamp duty, if it answers the description of ‘settlement’ also. As a matter of fact, a deed of trust/trust deed can also be a settlement deed.
I do not agree with the argument that the time-limit under Notification dated 1-3-2011 cannot be made applicable to the claims filed before that date and pending on that date. I also consider the fact that even under the earlier notification, the Deputy Commissioner had power to condone the delay. The delay involved was only 17 days and when a public authority is given any power, he is expected to exercise it unless there is a reason for not exercising such power.
The assessee was required to pay 10% of value of the final exempted goods in terms of the provisions of rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Explanation-1 attached to the said rule is to the effect that such amount shall be paid by the manufacturer by debiting the Cenvat credit or otherwise. As this amount payable at the time of clearances of the exempted final products is primarily intended to counter-effect the credit availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of such final exempted products;
It is also a fact that the assessing officer initiated the recovery proceedings without passing any order on the stay application of the assessee. It is also a fact that the recovery proceedings under S. 220(6) were initiated without attending to or expressly rejecting the stay application filed by the assessee before the assessing officer. In our opinion, this approach is certainly not appreciated.
The statutory provision of section 92CA does provide for an approval by the Commissioner and the original record produced before this Court establishes that there was an approval by the Commissioner in the matter of reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed by (Additional Commissioner) an authority who is jurisdictionally competent to pass such an order and it can never be said that the order passed by him without jurisdiction.
The question as to whether the amount constituted the corpus fund of the assessee-trust, in view of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) after considering declaration from all the 60 donors of the corpus fund certifying that they have donated towards corpus fund of the assessee-society and the revenue has not raised any ground of appeal against the admission of these declarations produced by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), the amount in question has to be held as constituting ‘Corpus Fund’ of the assessee-society and accordingly, the order of the Judicial Member on the issue is to be confirmed.
