TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by Appellant for the purpose of its mutual fund operations. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP/AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that mutual fund operations of Appellant are an extension of its existing business activities and hence, deduction for expenses incurred in relation to such operations should be allowed to Appellant. 2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP/AO has erred in concluding that the Appellant has failed to prove that the business activities were actually carried out and the expenses have been incurred in connection with earning of income. 3. Ground No. 3 - Non-grant of full credit in respect of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and advance tax. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in granting credit for TDS of Rs. 3,96,924 only against Rs. 5,60,724 claimed by the Appellant in its return of income filed for the subject AY. 3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in granting credit for advance tax of Rs. 2,18,00,000 only against Rs. 2,53,00,000 claimed by the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount of non- deduction of TDS by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i). As per the provisions of section 195 of the Act, the primary condition for applicability of withholding tax pro visions from payment made/credited to a non-resident is that the income is chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act. Accordingly, in case the payments made are not charge able to tax under the provisions of the Act, there will be no liability to deduct tax at source and accordingly, the provisions of section 195 of the Act will not be applicable. Since , the payment has been made outside India to a non- resident, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) cannot be invoked, however, as the assessee has been unable to show the genuine ness of the payment, provide supporting evidence in respect of incurring the expense and give conclusive proof that the expense has been incur red wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the proposed addition by the assessing officer is upheld. 22.2 Disallowance of expenditure amounting Rs. 11,278,603 Incurred by AIPL for the purpose of its mutual fund operations The assessee has claimed business loss amounting to Rs. 1,12,78,603/-, On enquiry by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly mentioning the names of the employees * Form 15CBs (accountants certificate) obtained by AIPL while making the above remittance. 8. Hence, keeping in view the fact that the lease rentals have been indeed paid for the accommodation of the employees and the recipient is a tax resident of USA with no PE in India, we hold that no disallowance is called for under this head. Pre-operative Expenses: 9. The relevant facts are that the assessee was incorporated on August 18, 2005 and was engaged in provision of IT-enabled back office services to its parent company, Ameriprise Financial Inc. (AFI). The assessee commenced providing these services in October 2005. IT-enabled back office services provided by the assessee to AFI include a range of services in the nature of finance support, financial planning, data analytics, vendor management etc. The assessee extended its business to providing financial consultancy and investment advisory in relation to mutual fund investments by amending its Memorandum of Association vide special resolution passed by the shareholders in its extraordinary general meeting held on August 26, 2010. The assessee claimed the expenses pertaining to financial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever, the funds utilised for the management of both the concerns must be common as reflected in the balance sheet of the company." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour t judgment in the case of CIT vs. Prithvi Insurance Co. Limited (1967) (63 ITR 632) (SC), held as under: "A fairly adequate rest for determining whether the two constitute the same business is furnished by what Rowlett said in Scules vs. George Thompson & Co. Ltd [1927] 13 Tax Cas 83 : "Was there any inter- connection any inter-lacing, any inter-dependence, any unity at all embracing those two businesses?" That inter-connection inter-lacing inter-dependence and unity are furnished in this case by the existence of common management, common business organisation, common administration, common fund and a common place of business." 13. The said decision was followed by the Supreme Court in Product Exchange Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (197 0) 77 ITR 739 (SC) 14. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of B.R. Limited Vs. Gupta (VP) (113 ITR 647) wherein it was held as under: "In support of his conclusion that the two businesses are different, the Commissioner relies on th....