Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 554 - ITAT MUMBAIDetermination of advertising revenues of the assessee company to the extent attributable to its PE in India - different percentages of advertisement revenues for different years - Held that:- Though the appellant has not produced any details of the various expenses, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the appellant has not incurred any expenses under these heads. At the same time, it cannot be said that income of Indian Operations of the appellant of is definitely ascertainable in view of the fact that the appellant has not produced documentary evidence in cases of various other expenses. Further, the method of allocation of various expenses to India Operations cannot be said to be foolproof. Therefore, there is no other option but to apply Rule 10 in order to ascertain the profits attributable to Indian Operations of MTVA. Considering the verifiability of purchase of programmes and transponder charges the margin of the appellant comes to 0.85% ignoring all other expenses. Further the appellant has filed copies of tax computations file with Singapore Tax Authorities in respect of the Global Operations, in which substantial loss is reflected. On a perusal of the same it is clear that the appellant has indeed incurred huge losses. Therefore the margin of 30% applied by the Assessing Officer seems to be very high. - Estimation of profit reduced from 30% to 10%. - Decided partly in favor of assessee. Interest u/s 234B for failure to pay advance tax - held that:- issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. NGC Net Work Asia LNC [2009 (1) TMI 174 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that when the entire income of non resident assessee was liable for deduction of tax at source by the payer, there was no obligation on the payee to pay advance tax in respect of his income and no interest u/s 234B, therefore, could be charged. - Decided in favor of assessee.
|