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

In a Portfolio Management Scheme, the choice of securities and its period of holding is left to the portfolio manager and the assessee has no control. Only the portfolio manager can deal with the Demat account of the assessee. While, at the time of depositing the amount, the assessee will make entry in his books of account as investment in PMS, he is not aware of the transactions in the shares being entered into by the portfolio manager on his behalf as his agent. Since the assessee comes to know about the purchase and sale of shares under PMS after the expiry of the quarter, the accounting treatment in the books of the assessee in respect of shares purchased/sold by the portfolio manager under PMS cannot be entered in the books of the assessee. It is at the end of the year the shares available in the DEMAT account can be entered. Therefore, at the time of deposit of amount, the intention of the assessee was to maximize the profit. As the purchase and sale of shares under PMS is not in the control of the assessee at all, it cannot be said that the assessee had invested money under PMS with intention to hold shares as investment. The portfolio manager carried out trading in shares on behalf of his clients to maximize the profits. Therefore, it cannot be said that shares were held by the assessee as investment. The fact that the transactions were frequent and its volume was high indicated that the portfolio manager had done trading on behalf of the assessee. The fact that the shares remaining at the end of the year were shown under the head ‘investment’ makes no difference. Even the LTCG is assessable as business profits and s. 10(38) exemption is not available. The fact that the AO took a contrary view in the preceding year is irrelevant. There is no difference between similar transactions carried out by an individual in shares and the transactions carried out by portfolio manager. There is, however, a difference between investment in a mutual fund and PMS

While Rule 10D(4) requires that the information should be “contemporaneous” and exist latest by the “specified date”, there is no “cut-off date” upto which only the information available in public domain can be considered by the TPO. Even data that becomes available in the public domain after the specified date can be considered. If the TPO collects information u/s 133(6), he is not required to inform the assessee about the process used by him nor is he required to furnish the entire information to the assessee. However, the assessee must be given proper hearing if any information is proposed to be used against it

To fall within s. 194-H, the payment must be by a “person acting on behalf of another person“. The element of “agency” has necessarily to be there. If the dealings between the parties is not on a “principal to agent” basis, s. 194-H does not get attracted

The assessee was required to comply with the transfer pricing provisions of s. 92 to 92F with respect to the transaction of interest-free loan to its subsidiary. The CUP method is the most appropriate method in order to ascertain the ALP of such international transaction by taking into account prices at which similar transactions with other unrelated parties have been entered into. For that purpose, an assessment of the credit quality of the borrower and estimation of a credit rating, evaluation of the terms of the loan e.g period of loan, amount, currency, interest rate basis, and additional inputs such as convertibility and finally estimation of arm’s length terms for the loan based upon the key comparability factors and internal and/or external comparable transactions are relevant. None of these inputs have anything to do with the costs; they only refer to prevailing prices in similar unrelated transactions instead of adopting the prices at which the transactions have been actually entered in such cases, the hypothetical arms length prices, at which these associated enterprises, but for their relationship, would have entered into the same transaction, are taken into account. Whether the funds are advanced out of interest bearing funds or interest free advances or are commercially expedient for the assessee or not, is wholly irrelevant in this context. As the transaction is of lending money, in foreign currency, to its foreign subsidiary, the comparable transaction should also be of foreign currency lending by unrelated parties (Perot Systems 130 TTJ 685 (Del) followed).

On merits, s. 132B (1) provides that the assets seized u/s 132 may be adjusted against the amount of any “existing liability” and the liability determined on completion of the assessment. The expression “existing liability” cannot be ascribed a restricted meaning. The liability to pay advance tax is an “existing liability” and so the cash seized ought to have been adjusted against that liability. The cash seized from third parties, having been assessed in the assessee’s hands, retains the same character as cash seized from the assessee (Sudhakar Shetty 10 DTR (Mum) 173 followed)

S. 194-I defines “rent” to include any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, agreement or arrangement “for the use of” any machinery or plant. For a payment to be construed as “rent”, it is a condition precedent that the payer should have some control over the asset. There is a distinction between the use of an asset and the benefit derived from an asset. In a transaction of hire/ leasing, the possession of the goods and its effective control is given to the customer and the customer has the freedom and choice of how to use the asset. On the other hand, if the customer entrusts to the assessee the work of achieving a certain desired result and that involves the use of goods belonging to the owner, the control of the asset remains with the owner and there is no “use” by the customer (Asia Satellite 332 ITR 340 (Del) followed)