The test of enduring benefit is not a certain or a conclusive test which the courts can apply almost by rote. What is required to be seen is the real intent and purpose of the expenditure and whether the expenditure results in creation of fixed capital for the assessee. Expenditure incurred which enables the profit making structure to work more efficiently leaving the source of the profit making structure untouched is expense in the nature of revenue expenditure. Fine tuning business operations to enable the management to run its business effectively, efficiently and profitably; leaving the fixed assets untouched is of revenue expenditure even though the advantage may last for an indefinite period. Test of enduring benefit or advantage collapses in such like cases especially in cases which deal with technology and software application which do not in any manner supplant the source of income or added to the fixed capital of the assessee (Alembic Chemical Works 177 ITR 377 followed)
The assessee’s argument, based on Skycell Communications v/s DCIT 251 ITR 53 (Mad), that the stock exchange does not render “managerial or technical services” is not acceptable because while in that case the subscriber had paid a fixed amount for the use of air time on the mobile phone and was not concerned with the technology or the services rendered by the managerial staff in keeping the cellular mobile phone activated, in the case of a stock exchange, there is direct linkage between the managerial services rendered and the transaction charges levied by the stock exchange. The BOLT system provided by the BSE is a complete platform for trading in securities. A stock exchange manages the entire trading activity carried on by its members and accordingly renders “managerial services”. Consequently, the transaction charges constituted “fees for technical services” u/s 194-J and the assessee ought to have deducted TDS. However, on facts, because from 1995 to 2005 no tax was deducted and no objection was raised by the AO and because from AY 2006-07 onwards the assessee had deducted TDS, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) can be made for AY 2005-06
In DCIT vs. Syncome Formulations 106 ITD 193 the Special Bench held in the context of s. 80HHC that the deduction is to be worked out not on the basis of regular income tax profits but it has to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits in a case where s. 115JA is applicable. In the said judgment, the dichotomy between regular income tax profits and adjusted book profits u/s 115JA was clearly brought out and it was rightly held that in s. 115JA relief has to be computed u/s 80HHC(3)/(3A). It was held that once the law itself declares that the adjusted book profit is amenable for further deductions on specified grounds, in a case where s. 80HHC (80HHE in the present case) is operational, it becomes clear that computation for the deduction under those sections needs to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profit. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80HHC & 80HHE has to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book profit u/s 115JA and not on the basis of the profits computed under regular provisions of law applicable to computation of profits and gains of business. We agree with the view taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal
If the creditor discloses his PAN and claims to be an assessee, the AO cannot himself examine the return and P&L A/c of the creditor and brand the same as unworthy of credence. Instead, he should enquire from the creditor’s AO as to the genuineness of the transaction and whether such transaction has been accepted by the creditor’s AO. So long it is not established that the return submitted by the creditor has been rejected by the creditor’s AO, the assessee’s AO is bound to accept the same as genuine when the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of transaction through account payee cheque has been established
The assessee had a “site” or “project” in India. Under Article 5 (3) of the treaty, such a “site” or “project” is a PE only if it continues for a period of more than six months. As the assessee’s contract was completed in two months, there was no PE under Article 5(3). The argument that the Mumbai office was a PE under Article 5(2) is not acceptable because while Article 5(2) is a general provision, Article 5 (3) is a specific provision which prevails over Article 5(2).