Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA protects the interest of non residents vis-a-vis residents. Article 26(3) provides that payment made to a non-resident will be deductible under the same conditions as if the payment were made to a resident. The exceptions provided in Article 26(3) are not applicable on facts. As per s. 40(a)(i), no disallowance can be made in respect of payments to residents on the ground of non-deduction of tax at source. Therefore, in view of Article 26(3), no disallowance can be made even in case of payments to non-residents even if the amount is found taxable in India in their hands. Herbal Life International 101 ITD 450(Del) followed

In the interest of judicial discipline, a Member who has taken a view should not be party to a Special Bench

S. 115 JB can only come into play when the assessee is required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. The starting point of computation of minimum alternate tax u/s 115 JB is the result shown by such a profit and loss account. In the case of banking companies, however, the provisions of Schedule VI are not applicable in view of exemption set out under proviso to S. 211 (2) of the Companies Act. The final accounts of banking companies are required to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. Consequently, s. 115 JB cannot be applied to a banking company

In the absence of a PE in India, the compensation awarded under the arbitration award was not taxable in India. Consequently, there was no obligation on the assessee to deduct tax u/s 195(1) and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) could be made

Though s. 12A (1)(b) provides that the exemption u/s 11 will be available only if the accounts are audited and audit report “furnished along with the return”, the same is not mandatory but is directory. The audit report in Form 10B affirms the statements contained in the balance sheet and income-expenditure statement and is intended to enable the AO to allow the exemption by relying on the audit report and without having to ask the assessee to furnish supporting documents in support of the claim. Such a procedural provision cannot be construed as mandatory because the defect can be cured at a subsequent stage. It is not the intention of the Legislature that the exemption u/s 11 should be denied merely because the audit report was not filed with the return