A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing notice. In the case of Lakhdir Lalji (supra), the AO issued notice u/s 274 for concealment of particulars of income but levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court quashed the penalty since the basis for the penalty proceedings disappeared when it was held that there was no suppression of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court has struck down the penalty imposed in the case of N.N.Subramania Iyer Vs. Union of India (supra), when there is no indication in the notice for what contravention the petitioner was called upon to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed. In the instant case, the AO did not specify the charge for which penalty proceedings were initiated and further he has issued a notice meant for calling the assessee to furnish the return of income. Hence, in the instant case, the assessing officer did not specify the charge for which the penalty proceedings were initiated and also issued an incorrect notice. Both the acts of the AO, in our view, clearly show that the AO did not apply his mind when he issued notice to the assessee and he was not sure as to what purpose the notice was issued
Though service of installation is covered by the FTS clause as well as Installation PE clause of the India China treaty and though the installation contract (including period of after sales service) exceeded 183 days, the income from installation activity was neither taxable as FTS nor as business income since (i) the service of installation was inextricably connected to sale of goods, the same could not be treated as FIS or FTS (ii) specific installation PE clause in India China Treaty will override General FTS clause (iii) the aforesaid threshold limit of 183 days would have to be applied to the actual period of installation (which was less than 183 days) and not the contractual period
In the original assessment proceedings, the AO had analysed the payment in detail and then concluded that the provisions of sec. 194C are applicable. Also, not two but three views were possible viz. (i) TDS u/s 194H which was discussed by the AO in original order; (ii) TDS u/s 194C which was upheld by AO; and (iii) sec. 194A now sought to be taken by CIT. Since three views were possible, revision was not permissible. Furthermore, even on merits, it was held that view of the CIT was not correct because there was no money borrowed or debt incurred, and hence, payment made to NCL was not “income by way of interest”
The learned CIT(A) relied on ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499/M/2011) & A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 500/M/2011) and held that TDR Premium received by Society from its members was not covered by principle of Mutuality. The Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 reversed the order of Learned CIT(A) and held that TDR premium will be covered by the principle of mutuality. Hence, ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499/M/2011) and A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 500/M/2011) in case of Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society is no longer good law.
We are of the opinion that technical services or the start-up services, provided by the assessee, did not include any construction, assembly mining or like projects and therefore the payment received by it would not constitute FTS as per the provisions of the Act. Here, we would like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (243ITR459).In that case the assessee was engaged in the mining of lignite. It had entered in to an agreement with a Hungarian company for acquiring steam generating plant for more efficient running of its business. The AO held that income had accrued to Hungarian company in India and hence the Indian company was liable for deduction of tax. The Hon’ble court decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that receipts could not be brought to tax in India, that the payments made by it were not taxable under the provisions of section 9 of the Act. (Ichikawajama-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd (288 ITR 408) referred)
Section 100-105 r.w.s. 391of the CA deal with reduction of capital and obtaining permission of the Court. Clearly, both deal with different situations. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dealt with the schemes of buyback of shares and reduction of capital in the case of Capgemini India Private Limited (Company Scheme Petition No.434 of 2014 dated 28.04.2015) where it was held that it is open to a company to buy back its own shares by following the procedure prescribed under section 77A/Section 68 or by following the procedure prescribed under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956, Act. The observations of the Hon’ble Court does not leave any doubt that buyback of shares cannot be equated with reduction of capital