Though s. 54EC requires the investment to be made within 6 months of the date of transfer, a technical interpretation cannot be adopted but it has to be interpreted having regard to the purpose and spirit of the section. In Circular No 791 dated 2.6.2000 the CBDT held in the context of capital gains arising u/s 45(2), that though the transfer arises in the year of conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade, the period of 6 months for investment u/s 54E has to be reckoned from the date of sale of the stock-in-trade. The CBDT appreciated the impossibility of the assessee being able to invest the amount in specified assets within six months from the date of transfer. This interpretation of the CBDT supports the assessee’s claim that where the consideration is received much after the date of transfer and it is not possible to invest the same within 6 months of the date of transfer, the period of 6 months must be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration

There is no force in the Revenue’s claim that the assessee was not required to make any payment to its AE for resolving warranty claims. The assessee has the right to enter into an arrangement according to which its business interests are protected. It is the prerogative of the assessee to decide the business expediency. Rule 10B(1)(a) does not authorize disallowance of any expendtture on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same or that in view of the expenditure was unremunerative or that in view of the continued losses suffered by the assessee in his business, he could have fared better had he not incurred such expenditure. However, the reasonableness of an expenditure has not been excluded from determination and the TPO has to determine the ALP of the transaction (CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd & Dresser Rand followed)

S. 40(a)(ia) was amended by the FA 2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 to provide that no disallowance shall be made if the TDS (for whichever month) is paid before the due date of filing the ROI. While in Bharti Shipyard Ltd 132 ITD 53 (Mum) (SB), it was held that the amendment is not retrospective, a contrary view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Virgin Creations. Considering the precedent in the judicial hierarchy, the judgement of the non-jurisdictional High Court prevails over a judgement of the Special Bench (Kanel Oil & Export 121 ITD 596 (Ahd) (TM) followed)

S. 14A(2) empowers the AO to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to tax-free income if, “having regard to the accounts of the assessee, he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee“. The satisfaction of the AO as to the incorrect claim made by the assessee is sine qua non for invoking the applicability of Rule 8D. The satisfaction can be reached only when the claim of the assessee is verified. If the assessee proves before the AO that it incurred a particular expenditure in respect of earning the exempt income and the AO is satisfied, then there is no requirement to proceed with the computation under Rule 8D. The AO wrongly proceeded on the premise that Rule 8D is automatic irrespective of the genuineness of the assessee’s claim in respect of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. The correct sequence for making any disallowance u/s14A is to, firstly, examine the assessee’s claim of having incurred some expenditure or no expenditure in relation to exempt income. If the AO is satisfied with the same, then there is no need to compute disallowance as per Rule 8D. It is only when the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure or no expenditure having been incurred in relation to exempt income, that the mandate of Rule 8D will operate

In the books, the delivery based transactions were accounted as investment and a distinction from the non-delivery transactions is maintained. The transactions were with a limited number of companies (8) and the average number of transactions in one month were 8. The CBDT Circular permits the assessee to deal in the shares of one scrip and treat some as trading and some as a capital investment. The fact that the assessee borrowed funds for investing in shares cannot constitute a factor as in none of the case laws or CBDT circular it has been held that borrowings will not be allowed in investment transactions. Investment in capital assets can also be carried out by use of borrowed funds. There is no bar notified by the law, judicial pronouncement or CBDT Circular

The department has shown total apathy in the matter of service of notices of hearing. The opportunity of hearing to the other side is essential before adjudicating appeal for which service of notice is condition precedent. It is the established practice and procedure that in case notices of hearing cannot be served on the assessee in revenue’s appeals, such notices are got served through Income-tax authorities. This practice is based on considerations of expediency and equity and is fully in conformity with the judicial powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal and does not run contrary to any provisions of the Statute. It is within the incidental or implied powers of the Tribunal as enunciated in M.K. Mohammed Kunhi 71 ITR 815 (SC) & Paras Laminates 186 ITR 722 (SC). Accordingly, the Tribunal was within its powers to direct, and it was obligatory on the part of the I.T. authority, to effect service of notice of hearing on the assessee since the service could not be effected by post at the address given by the revenue in the memorandum of appeal since the department, as an executive organization, is well equipped with the requisite staff strength of Notice Server, Income-tax Inspector etc. for serving various statutory notices on the tax payer. Since the revenue has shown apathy with regard for serving the notices of hearing on the assessee and has also not made any request to get the notice served by alternate way i.e., by way of publication etc as laid down in rule 20 of CPC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the appeal (Aditya Organisers 91 ITD 342 (Ahd) followed)

The issue involved has now been decided by the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Virgin Creators against the Revenue. However, it is noteworthy that the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd 132 ITD 53 (Mum) has taken a view that the amendment is prospective in nature and would apply accordingly. Respectfully following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creators the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable

S.50C applies “where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty …” S. 50C is a deeming provision and extends to only to land or building or both. A deeming provision can be applied only in respect of the situation specifically given and cannot go beyond the explicit mandate of the section. If the capital asset under transfer cannot be described as “land or building or both”, s. 50C will cease to apply. As the assessee had transferred booking rights and received back the booking advance, the booking advance cannot be equated with the capital asset and therefore s. 50C cannot be invoked (Tejinder Singh followed)

After the Accountant Member passed the order formulating the questions for reference to the Third Member, he became functus officio. The opinion expressed by the Third Member was very much binding on the AM and he was bound to follow the opinion of the Third Member in its true letter and spirit. It was necessary for judicial propriety and discipline that the Member who is in minority must accept as binding opinion of the Third Member. The AM had no power to formulate new questions at the stage of giving effect to the opinion of the majority and his action was not sustainable in law

In Bharati Shipyard Ltd the Special Bench held that the amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by the FA 2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 could not be held to be retrospective from AY 2005-2006 on the ground that the amendment was not remedial and curative in nature. However, the Kolkata Bench had taken a contrary view in Virgin Creations vs. ITO and held that amendment by the FA 2010 was retrospective w.e.f. 1.4.2005. The view of the Kolkata Bench has been approved by the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Virgin Creations. The question as to whether a verdict of the Special Bench should be followed or that of a non-jurisdictional High Court should be followed is answered in Tej International (P) Ltd 69 TTJ (Del) 650 wherein it was held that in the hierarchical judicial system that we have in India, the wisdom of the court below has to yield to the higher wisdom of the Court above, and therefore, once an authority higher than this Tribunal has expressed its esteemed views on a an issue, normally, the decision of the higher judicial authority is to be followed. It was also held that the fact that the judgment of the higher judicial forum is from a non-jurisdictional High court does not alter this position. Consequently, Virgin Creations is followed and it is held that the amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) is retrospective from 1.4.2005 and any payment of TDS on or before the due date for filing the ROI is sufficient