TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee earned in Thailand is required to be taxed in India with the allowance of tax credit on the actual tax paid by the assessee in Thailand subject to the provisions of DTAA. Article 23(2) of the DTAA with Thailand read as under. "The amount of that tax payable, under the laws of Thailand and in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, whether directly or by deduction, by a resident of India, in respect of profits or income arising in Thailand, which has been subjected to tax both in India and in Thailand, shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax payable in respect of such profits or income provided that such credit shall not exceed the Indian tax (as computed before allowing any such credit) which is appropriate to the profits or income arising in Thailand." According to Article 23(3) of the DTAA, "For the purposes of the credit referred to in Paragraph (2), the term "That tax payable" shall be deemed to include any amount which would have been payable as Thai tax for any year...." It is clear from the above, where the profits or income has been subjected to tax both in India and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... According to him, in the original assessment completed on 18.2.2005, Assessing Officer had in detail considered the claim of the assessee that Bangkok income was not taxable in India. 8. Per contra, learned D.R. supported the orders of authorities below. 9. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. We find that in the original assessment completed under Section 143(3) on 18.2.2005, Assessing Officer had dealt with the issue regarding claim of the assessee with regard to its Bangkok income. Relevant para in the assessment order appearing on page 5 is reproduced hereunder:- "DIT relief under Double Taxation Agreement The assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,23,152/- being 35.70% tax on its Bangkok income of Rs. 12,61,15,270/-. As held by the Supreme Court of India, in the case of P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (supra), the income from Bangkok amounting to Rs. 12,61,15,270/-is not taxable in India and hence reduced from the total income. The above Supreme Court judgment was referred to the Sr. Standing Counsel for proper interpretation and as advised by her necessary reworking has been don....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Tribunal in ITA No.1191/Mds/2012. The relevant extract of the order of the Tribunal in the said appeal is reproduced herein below:- 7. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. The original claim, which was allowed by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, was as follows:- 7.5% of Gross Total Income : Rs. 5,74,07,362 10% of Rural Advances : Rs. 2,72,65,099 (Rs. 27,26,50,990/-) Rs. 8,46,72,461 Thereafter, assessee had moved in appeal against some of the additions made by the Assessing Officer on other issues and pursuant to the relief granted in such appeal, the gross total income which earlier stood at Rs. 76,54,31,493/- came down to Rs. 35,38,65,546/-. As a result of the reduction in gross total income, deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was also scaled down from Rs. 5,74,07,362/- to Rs. 2,65,39,916/-. This sum when aggregated with 10% of rural advances coming to Rs. 2,72,65,099/-, resulted in the sum of Rs. 5,38,05,015/- being eventually allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... debts. May be, the RBI has made a regulation for 10% provision for standard assets also a prudential norm. This can however be considered as a measure prescribed in abundant caution, to deal with a situation where banks are not to suffer shock of sudden delinquency that could happen in future. There is always a possibility that an asset, which is fully recoverable, may not be so at future date. Nevertheless, possibility of happening of such a contingency cannot be a sufficient reason to consider a provision made on standard assets also as a provision for bad and doubtful debts. Therefore, claim of the assessee that provision for standard assets also has to be considered for applying the condition set out under Section 36(1)(viia) is not in accordance with law. If the provision for standard assets is not considered as provision for bad and doubtful debts, the actual provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee in its books Rs. 4,01,44,027/- fall much below the sum of Rs. 5,38,05,015/- allowed by the Assessing Officer. In any case, a look into the original assessment order clearly show that but for the deduction allowed to the assessee as claimed by it in its return, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, for the impugned assessment year, was confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). As per assessee, the A.O. had made the disallowance relying on Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962, whereas, the said rule was not applicable for impugned assessment year. 18. Learned A.R. submitted that income was earned on securities held as stock-in-trade. According to him, when securities were held as stock-in-trade, income earned thereon were only incidental. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (250 CTR 291), learned A.R. submitted that where earnings of income were only incidental, Section 14A could not be applied. Reliance was also placed on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of MSA Securities Services (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT in I.T.A.No. 1523/Mds/2012 dated 17th October, 2012.. 19. Per contra, learned D.R. submitted that in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07, this Tribunal has remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh. 20. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dy. CIT [2009] 27 SOT 9 (Delhi) (URO) reported as 111 TTJ 498 wherein the Tribunal has held UPS at par with plant and machinery and rejected the contention of assessee to treat it as part of computer. 28. We do not agree with the submissions of the AR that the UPS is an energy saving device, therefore, depreciation @ 80% should be granted. However, we are in consonance with the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Court has granted depreciation @ 60% by treating UPS as part of computer hardware. Accordingly, we allow depreciation @ 60% on UPS and partly allow the ground of appeal of the assessee." Following the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, we hold that assessee was entitled for higher depreciation available to energy saving device. 26. Ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed. 27. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 28. Coming to the appeal of the Revenue, it has raised altogether five grounds, of which, Ground Nos.1 and 5 are general needing no adjudication. 29. Vide its ground No.2, gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b of the Assessing Officer was to see whether there is a DTAA between India and Thailand. We are unable to understand the above conclusion made by the learned CIT(Appeals) that the job of the Assessing Officer is just to see whether there is a DTAA between India and Thailand. If there is a DTAA, the Assessing Officer has to allow the relief claimed by the assessee. That being so, in our opinion, the Tribunal need not refer it to the Assessing Officer as well just to see and pass an order. The Tribunal clearly directed the Assessing Officer to enquire into the existence of a DTAA between India and Bangkok. "Enquiry" means to investigate and apply the same. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer has rightly investigated and applied the same and decided the issue. We therefore hold that the finding given by the learned CIT(Appeals) is not correct. Accordingly, we reverse the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) on this count and uphold the order of the Assessing Officer." 36. Ground No.3 of the Revenue is allowed. 37. Vide its ground No.4, grievance raised by the Revenue is that CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to allow loss on revaluation of investments of Rs. 34,98,1....