Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 258 - AT - Income TaxDeduction allowable under S.80HHC - CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in excluding interest income while computing the profits of the business for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable - Held that:- This issue is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003-04 rendered vide order dated 23.7.2009 passed in ITA No.662/Hyd/2006 and others wherein it was held by following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Shriram Honda Power Equipment Ltd. (2007 (1) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT, DELHI), that interest income received on deposits was chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’ and the same, therefore, was liable to be excluded from the profits of the business for the purpose of computing the deduction under S.80HHC allowable to the assessee. Thus uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) - Decided against assessee. Allowing deduction under S.80HHC with reference to the eligible profits of the business as reduced by the amount of deduction allowed under S.80IB - Held that:- A similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules P. Ltd. V/s. DCIT (2011 (1) TMI 787 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) holding that the amount of profit allowable as deduction under S.80IA of the Act is not required to be reduced from the profits of the business of the undertaking, while computing the deduction under any other provisions under Heading C in Chapter VI-A of the Act, which also includes S.80HHC. Also see CIT V/s. Vegetable Products Ltd.(1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court). - Decided in favour of assessee. TP adjustment - international transactions of the assessee company with its AE involving export of manufactured goods - Held that:- set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO with a direction to do the exercise of transfer pricing analysis afresh by comparing the average price (Arithmetic Mean) charged by the assessee company to its non-AEs other than in Sudan with the price charged by the assessee company to its AE for the similar products. The AO/TPO shall determine the Arm’s Length Price by taking the arithmetic mean of the prices charged by the assessee company to its non-AEs and apply the same to the relevant international transactions of the assessee company to its AE, in order to determine the transfer pricing adjustment, if any, that is required to be made on account of these transactions - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. TP adjustment in relation to the international transactions with AE involving payment of commission amounting to ₹ 20,60,722 and disallowance of commission of ₹ 2,70,424 - Held that:- We have also gone through the documentary evidence filed by the assessee in the paper book in support of the claim of the assessee on this issue, and find that the same mainly comprising of e-mails and correspondence exchanged with the concerned tow parties is only self serving evidence, which is not sufficient to establish the claim of the assessee of having received the services from the concerned two parties, especially when there is no third party evidence like any correspondence or communication from M/s. Sudan Gezeria Board recognizing the said two parties as the agents of the assessee company or of any services rendered by them in connection with the procurement of the orders by the assessee company from M/s. Sudan Gezeria Board. Thus we find ourselves in agreement with the learned CIT(A) that the claim of the assessee of having paid the commission to the concerned two parties for the services rendered in connection with procurement of export order from M/s. Sudan Gezeria Board was not established either on evidence or even in the facts of the case, and hence, upholding the order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue, we dismiss grounds of the assessee’s appeal. - Decided against assessee.
|