S. 14A & Rule 8D: Onus is on AO to show how assessee’s claim is incorrect. AO has to show direct nexus between expenditure & exempt income. Disallowance cannot be made on presumptions

(i) A disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be made without recording satisfaction as to how the assessee’s calculation of s. 14A disallowance is incorrect. It is a prerequisite that before invoking Rule 8D, the AO must record his satisfaction on how the assessee’s calculation is incorrect. The AO cannot apply Rule 8D without pointing out any inaccuracy in the method of apportionment or allocation of expenses. Further, the onus is on the AO to show that expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for earning tax-free income. Without discharging the onus, the AO is not entitled to make an ad hoc disallowance. A clear finding of incurring of expenditure is necessary. No disallowance can be made on the basis of presumptions, (ii) the mere fact that some interest expenses were incurred cannot be the reason for disallowance unless the nexus between the expense and the exempt income is established, (iii) the assessee did not make any fresh investment during the year which could generate exempt income in forthcoming years, (iii) the exempt income earned during the year comprised of dividend received from an investment made in an earlier year, (iv) the interest expenditure of the year is not directly related to the earning of exempt income & (v) the AO has not pointed out any direct nexus between the interest expenditure incurred and the exempt income earned during the year (Hero Cycles Ltd 323 ITR 518 P&H) & Godrej and Boyce 194 Taxman 203 (Bom) followed)

S. 14A & Rule 8D disallowance applies to tax-free securities held as stock-in-trade

It is accepted by both parties that the assessee is a dealer in shares and that the shares were held by it as stock-in-trade. The issue under appeal is squarely covered by the principles laid down in Godrej & Boyce, Dhanuka & Sons 339 ITR 319 (Cal), American Express Bank and Damani Estates & Finance in which the issue has been elaborately considered. The argument that the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in CCI Ltd is the solitary High Court judgement on the point and it should be followed is not correct because the issue has also been considered in Dhanuka & Sons. Also, while CCI Ltd has not considered the jurisdictional High Court judgement in Godrej & Boyce, Dhanuka & Sons has duly considered Godrej & Boyce. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 14A can be made in conformity with law even where dividend income has been held on shares held as stock-in-trade.

S. 115AD: High Court verdict in Bharat Ruia 337 ITR 452 (Bom) on taxation of derivatives as speculation income/ loss is not applicable to FIIs

The judgement of the Bombay High Court in Bharat Ruia is not applicable to assessees which are FIIs duly registered with SEBI. FIIs are allowed to only invest in the Capital Market and the income arising from transfer of security is to be considered as short term capital gain or long term capital gain as per s. 115AD of the Act. FIIs are not allowed to do business in the security market. Also, derivative is a security as per the clause (ia) to sub-section (h) of section 2 of The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 with effect from 22.2.2000. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has considered this aspect as well in the earlier order dated 5.12.2012 in which the earlier decision in LG Asian Plus Ltd v/s ADIT 46 SOT 159 was also considered

If the contract falls u/s 44BB, incidental technical services are not assessable as “fees for technical services” u/s 9(1)(vii). Verdict in Alcatel Lucent (Del) on liability of foreign company to pay s. 234B interest is not applicable in Mumbai

The contract was a composite one and its main purpose was to install offshore pipelines, etc. To achieve this main purpose, the assessee had undertaken various activities which were listed down in the various articles of the contract. Those activities were incidental to the main job and were an integral part of the contract to ensure that all the pipe lines were successfully installed, commissioned, tested and complied with the standards set out in the contract. The argument of the department that the activity relating to providing technical services should be assessed as “fees for technical services” u/s 9(1)(vii) is not acceptable. When a contract consists of a number of terms and conditions, each condition does not form a separate contract. The contract has to be read as a whole. The entire consideration is assessable only u/s 44BB and no part of it is assessable as fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) (Chaturbuj Vallabhdas AIR 1954 (SC) 236, Mitsui Engg. & Ship Building 259 ITR 248 (Del), Jindal Drilling and Industries 320 ITR 104 (Del) & G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd 139 TTJ 568 followed)

AO’s action of recovering outstanding taxes without affording reasonable time to take remedial steps is a misuse of powers and a gross violation of the directions laid down by the Courts. AO has to refund the taxes recovered

The action of the AO in recovering the outstanding without affording the assessee minimum reasonable time to take remedial steps is a misuse of powers and a gross violation of the directions laid down by the Courts as well as the basic rule of law and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we direct the Revenue to refund the entire amount of Rs. 159.84 crore to the assessee within 10 days from the receipt of this order (Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd UOI 59 ELT 505, Mahindra & Mahindra W.P. 2164/2007, UTI Mutual Fund 345 ITR 71 (Bom), RPG Enterprises 251 ITR 20 (Mum) & MSEB 81 ITD 299 (Mum) followed)

Transfer Pricing: ALP of royalty for trademark usage and technical know-how fee can be determined as per TNMM. Approval of RBI & Govt. means payment is as at arms length

The assessee has been paying royalty on technical know-how to its parent AE since 1993. Other group companies across the Globe are also paying the same royalty. Also, the payment is as per the approval given by the RBI and the SIA. Hence there cannot be any scope of doubt that the royalty payment on technical know-how is at arms length. As regards the royalty on trademark usage, the assessee is in fact paying a lesser amount if the payment is compared with the payment towards trademark usage by other group companies using the brand “Cadbury” in other parts of the world. Accordingly, the royalty payment on trademark usage is also within the arms’ length and does not call for any adjustment

Failure to comply with the criterion necessary to represent the matter before the Tribunal, in time, renders appeal liable for dismissal

It deserves to be noticed here that in Mumbai, despite repeatedly pointing out in each and every case, learned counsels rarely follow the practice of filing the power of attorney and many Members of the Tribunal, who do not believe it be their obligation to verify the availability of power of attorney, may not point out the same to the counsels and it results in counsels appearing without filing a power of attorney. There are equal number of occasions where several other Members, including Members of this Bench, have had occasion to point out that there was no power of attorney and counsels filed xerox copies or take further time to file power of attorney. In fact some would go to the extent of stating that they assumed that the power of attorney is on record and when we verify the file (though it is their duty to file power of attorney) and inform the counsel that there is no power of attorney then fresh power of attorney is filed. Particularly in the bench which is presided over by the Vice President, the registry notes on the file that the power of attorney of a person, who is representing the matter, is not on record and then the power of attorney is filed, notwithstanding the fact that before filing the power of attorney the same counsel or Chartered Accountant must have already taken adjournments on several occasions

Law on taxation of fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) & Article 12 and disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct TDS explained

The assessee paid Rs 52 lakhs towards “leather testing charges” to TUV Product Und Umwelt GmbH, a tax resident of Germany, without deduction of tax at source. The AO & CIT(A) disallowed the expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that (a) as Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA does not provide that India “shall” tax fees and royalties, the same cannot be taxed in India; (b) as the services were not rendered by the foreign company in India, the income was not chargeable to tax in India u/s 9(1)(vii); (c) as the services were rendered by an automated process and there was no human intervention, it did not constitute “fees for technical services” as defined in s. 9(1)(vii); (d) as the services were used for a 100% EOU whose products were sold outside India, the “source” of the income was outside India and so the exception in s. 9(1)(vii) (b) applied; (e) disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) was confined to amounts “payable” as at the end of the year as held by the jurisdictional High Court in Vector Shipping in the context of s. 40(a)(ia) and (f) as the taxability of the services was brought in by a retrospective amendment, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) could not be made. HELD by the Tribunal

Law of jurisdictional High Court is not binding if there is a later contrary judgement of non-jurisdictional High Court. S. 22: Property used by firm in which assessee-owner is partner is not used for assessee’s business & not entitled for exemption

Though the jurisdictional High Court in Rasiklal Balabhai 119 ITR 303 held that the annual letting value of house property owned by the assessee and used for the business carried on by him in partnership was not liable to be included in his total income u/s 22, the Calcutta High Court has dissented from this view in Prodip Kumar Bothra 244 CTR 366 and held that the exemption in respect of house property cannot be allowed to assessee if the property is used by the partnership firm because the owner of the house property and the occupier of the property must be the same person. The Karnataka High Court in K.N. Guruswamy 146 ITR 34 (Kar) and the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Mohan Lal 202 ITR 60 (All) & Mustafa Khan 276 ITR 602 (All) has taken the same view as the Calcutta High Court that user by a partnership firm/ HUF is not user by the assessee-owner for business purposes. In view of the divergent views expressed by the High Courts, the thumb rule that the latest decision of the High Court is required to be followed to maintain judicial discipline. As the judgement of the (jurisdictional) Gujarat High Court is earlier in point of time and the judgement of the (non-jurisdictional) Calcutta and other High Courts is later in point of time, the view expressed by the Revenue Authorities has to be affirmed and the assessee’s ground dismissed

Loss on forward foreign exchange contracts is incidental to the exports business and not a “speculation loss“. However, if the contract is prematurely cancelled, the assessee has to justify the loss

Though a forward contract for purchase or sale of foreign currency falls in the definition of “speculation transaction” u/s 43(5) as it is settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity, it cannot be regarded as constituting a “speculation business” under Explanation 2 to s. 28. A forward contract, entered into with banks for hedging losses due to foreign exchange fluctuations on the export proceeds, is in the nature of a “hedging contract” and is integral or incidental to the export activity of the assessee and cannot be considered as an independent business activity. Therefore, the losses or gains constitute business loss or gains and do not arise from speculation activities. The fact that there is a premature cancellation of the forward contract does not alter the nature of the transaction. There is also no requirement in the law that there should be a 1:1 correlation between the forward contracts and the export invoices. So long as the total value of the forward contracts does not exceed the value of the invoices, the loss has to be treated as a business loss (Sooraj Mull Magarmull 129 ITR 169 (Cal), Badridas Gauridu 261 ITR 256 (Bom), Panchamahal Steel 215 Taxman 140 (Guj) and Friends and Friends Shipping (Guj) followed; contrary view in S. Vinodkumar Diamonds (ITAT Mum) referred)