Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 864 - AT - Income TaxTP adjustment - certain Bank Guarantee being provided by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises [AE]. - Held that:- As relying on assessee's own case [2017 (1) TMI 1519 - ITAT MUMBAI] we restrict the rate of impugned additions to 0.50% as against 2.25% taken by the lower authorities. This ground stand partly allowed. The Ld. AO is directed to modify the final assessment order to that extent. TP adjustment - assessee under contractual terms, had granted certain loan to one of its Associated Enterprise [AE] namely Laqshya Media International, Mauritius [LMI] for the purpose of further lending to step down subsidiaries and for acquiring the shares of overseas entities by the aforesaid AE - Held that:- The fact remains the same that the assessee has advanced loan pursuant to loan agreements / arrangements to its AE and was entitled to certain rate of interest. These loan transactions as entered into by the assessee with the AE squarely falls within the ambit of Section 92(1) / 92B as an international transactions as accepted by the assessee in its TP study and the statutory provisions mandates that the income from such transactions is to be computed on the principle of arm's length price irrespective of the fact that no such income has actually accrued to the assessee. This being so, the argument of principles of commercial expediency or notional income or revenue neutrality as raised before us fails since as long as the transaction is an international transaction within the framework of law, the computation of income there-from has to be on the basis of arm's length principle. Applicable interest rate - AR has supported the argument that the same should be benchmarked at LIBOR - admission of additional evidence - Held that:- Since additional evidences have been placed before us for the first time which are germane to the adjudication of the issue and the fact as to the currency in which the loan was granted and the currency in which it was repayable is not quite certain, the issue requires re-appreciation by lower authorities. For the aforesaid limited purpose, the matter stand remitted back to the file of AO / TPO with a direction to the assessee to provide requisite details & information to substantiate the claim. This ground stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - interest paid towards working capital loans obtained by the assessee was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Held that:- Similar facts exist in the impugned AY and there is no material change in the factual matrix. Further, there is only a marginal increase of ₹ 0.53 Crores in loans granted by the assessee to its subsidiary during the impugned AY. Therefore, respectfully following the consistent stand of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12, the impugned additions of ₹ 214.05 Lacs stand deleted. The suo-moto disallowance of ₹ 194.10 Lacs as made by assessee while computing its income remain intact since the same has been added back in terms of the provisions of Section 43B. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- After perusal of decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI], we observe that the special bench, after considering catena of judicial pronouncements, has arrived at conclusion that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investments which yielded exempt income during the year. Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. AO to recompute the disallowance after considering only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year. The assessee is directed to provide requisite details in this regard. MAT - adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A in computation of book profit u/s 115JB - Held that:- Decision in PCIT Vs. Bhushan Steel Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 1424 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account except to the extent provided in Explanation to Section 115J. We hold that adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A was not required to be made in Book Profits for the purpose of Section 115JB. Respectfully following the catena of judgment in assessee’s favour, we hold that adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A was not required to be made in Book Profits for the purpose of Section 115JB. Certain incomes as reflected in Form 26AS not found to be credited in the Profit & Loss Account and the income to the extent of ₹ 1.02 Lacs could not be reconciled by the assessee - Held that:- Upon due consideration of factual matrix, we find that onus to reconcile the entries was on assessee. Since impugned order was passed on 31/01/2017, Ld. AO is directed to re-appreciate the entries in Form 26AS and re-adjudicate the same in the light of the confirmations / any other evidences received after the date of the impugned order. This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes. Short Grant of TDS Credit - Held that:- As per Ld. AR’s submissions, complete TDS reconciliation has already been filed before lower authorities. AO is directed to verify the same and grant TDS credit as per law which has accrued to the assessee during impugned AY. This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.
|