In view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court which held the field when the return was filed, the claim was patently disallowable. The claim was also not discernible on the face of the record and the details of expenses had to be gone into in order to decipher the claim. The argument that the assessee does not have expertise in taxation matters and so it relied on expert opinion is not acceptable because the opinion was not furnished for accounting purposes. An accountant’s view is not really material for deciding the deductibility or otherwise of an expenditure. The assessee knew about the problem at the time of filing of return, but still made the claim. Not only this, the claim was pursued even up to the level of the CIT (A) in gross disregard for the decision of the Supreme Court, which the assessee came to know at least after receiving the assessment order. Therefore, the claim was not only wrong but also false and it was persisted with for some time. The fact that the assessee did not even seek explanation from the tax auditor or the CA gave the impression that the whole thing was a sham.

Though the assessee owned the unaccounted transactions only after search action, when an assessee admits his mistake and that he has committed a wrong and offers the additional income to tax, it cannot be said that his statement is false or not bona fide. Neither the CIT (A) nor the Tribunal were completely clear about the exact amount of concealment and there was no conclusive evidence as some additions had been deleted. S. 271(1)(c) gives discretion to the AO to exonerate the assessee from levy of penalty even in case where the assessee has concealed the income or furnished incorrect particulars of income. Penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. The AO has to exercise his discretion judiciously. If an assessee files a revised return though at a later stage or discloses true income, penalty need not be levied. No doubt, merely offering additional income will not automatically protect the assessee from levy of penalty but in a given case where the assessee came forward with additional income though after detection because he was not in a position to explain the seized material properly and expresses remorse in his conduct un-hesitantly, the AO has to exercise the discretion in favour of such assessee as otherwise the expression ‘may’ in s. 271(1)(c) becomes redundant. In a case of admitted income, concealment penalty is not automatic. The discretion vested in the AO should be used not to levy penalty. On facts, the case was most befitting to exercise such discretion because there was divergent opinion while deleting or sustaining the addition and there was no conclusive proof that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee’s offer was to avoid litigation. If the AO had clinching evidence of concealment, he should not have accepted the assessee’s offer and should have proceeded on the basis of material on record (VIP Industries 112 TTJ 289, Siddharth Enterprises 184 TM 460 (P&H) & Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 (SC) followed)

Rule 10B(e)(iii) provides that “the profit margin arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions has to be adjusted to take into account the differences, if any between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market“. While the “differences” are not specified, it covers “any differences” which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin. The litmus test to be applied is if the ‘difference, if any, is capable of affecting the NPM in open market? If yes, then the TPO is under statutory obligation to eliminate such differences. The revenue cannot say that difference is likely to exist in all accounts and so the demands of the assessee should be ignored. The revenue’s stand that the assessee is ineligible for any adjustments if he provides the set of comparable is not correct because under Rule 10(3) it is the duty of the AO/TPO/DRP to minimize/eliminate the difference which is likely to materially affect the price. It is the settled proposition that ‘working capital’ adjustment is an adjustment that is required to be made in TNMM. The revenue’s contention that the ‘differences’ specified should refer to only (i) the factor of demand and supply; (ii) existence of marketable intangibles i.e. brand name etc; (iii) geographical location and the like is not acceptable. Further, as the difference in the Arm’s length Operating Margin of the Comparables before and after making the adjustment for working capital was up to 3.77%, it was “material” and had to be eliminated (Mentor Graphics 109 ITD 101 (Del), E-gain Communication 118 ITD 243 (Pune) Sony India 114 ITD 448 (Del) & TNT India followed)

S. 72 (1) allows brought forward business loss to be set-off against the “profits & gains of any business or profession” of the subsequent year. The expression “profits & gains of business” means income earned out of business carried on by the assessee and not just income connected in some way to the business or profession carried on by the assessee. The land & building were fixed & capital assets used by the assessee for its business purposes. The gains arising there from were assessable as capital gains and were not eligible for set-off against the brought forward business loss u/s 72 (Express Newspapers 53 ITR 250 (SC) followed; Cocanada Radhaswami Bank 55 ITR 17(SC) distinguished; Steelcon Industries reversed)

In order to constitute a PE under Article 5(1) & 5(2), three criteria are required to be satisfied viz; physical criterion (existence), functionality criterion (carrying out of business through that place of physical location) & subjective criterion (right to use that place). There must exist a physical “location”, the enterprise must have the “right” to use that place and the enterprise must “carry on” business through that place. An “agency” PE will not satisfy this condition because the enterprise will not have the “right” to use the place of the agent. Under Article 5(6) of the India-French DTAA (which is at variance with the UN & OECD Model Conventions), even a wholly dependent agent is to be treated as an independent agent unless if it is shown that the transactions between him and the enterprise are not at arms’ length. The Department’s argument that as the AO had not examined whether the transactions were done in arm’s length conditions, the matter should be restored to him is not acceptable because the onus was on the Revenue to demonstrate that the assessee had a PE. The onus is greater where the very foundation of DAPE rested on the negative finding that the transactions between the agent and the enterprise were not made under at arms length conditions. A negative finding about transactions with the dependent agent not being at ALP is sine qua non for existence of a DAPE under the India-France DTAA. The AO could not be granted a fresh inning for making roving and fishing enquiries whether the transactions were at arm’s length conditions or not