Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 70 - ITAT MUMBAIIncome recognition - determining estimated total profit/loss from the project - Extension of Time (EoT) claim excluded from estimated contract value for the purposes of recognizing revenue under Accounting Standard-7 (AS-7) - HELD THAT:- Undisputed fact is that the assessee itself has included a sum of ₹ 150 crores as EOT claim on the basis of expected probable realisation of the claim. Though the addition made by the AO has been deleted by ld CIT(A), which has also been confirmed by us, on the basis of AS-7 and surrounding facts, yet the fact remains that the assessee has included a sum of ₹ 150 crores with regard to the EOT claim on the basis of its past experience relating to the settlement of EOT claims. Hence, we are of the view that the principles adopted for deleting the enhancement made by the AO cannot be equally applied to the amount of ₹ 150 crores included by the assessee in the contract receipts on the basis of accounting principles consistently followed by it. Accordingly we confirm the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disallowance - addition on the ground that those expenses were not incurred for business purposes - HELD THAT:- We set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above ground of appeal and restore the matter to the file of the AO to pass an order afresh after (i) following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 to AY 2010-11 and (ii) examining whether the expenditure has been incurred for the purposes of business. We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO. Claim for set off of share of loss from AOP under the provisions of section 70 against business income the appellant is not allowable - see assessee's own case [2013 (1) TMI 367 - ITAT MUMBAI] Deduction u/s 80IA(4) rejected - HELD THAT:- This issue was decided against the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the assessee’s own case relating to AY 2003-04 and 2007-08, referred above by holding that the assessee has acted as a “Contractor” in various projects and not as a developer. Consistent with the view taken in the above said years, we uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue TP adjustment - assessee advanced an unsecured loan to its AE for the purpose of acquisition of shares - at LIBOR + 400 bps OR LIBOR + 300 bps on loan given by the appellant to its Associated Enterprise - HELD THAT:- The tenure of loan was 3 years and interests were payable @ LIBOR + 300 bps on completion of tenure of the loan. The assessee submitted before the TPO that the rate of interest charged by it is more than the prevailing market rate. The TPO has reproduced the submissions of the assessee on comparability of lending to the AE by Exim Bank and by the assessee at page 22 and 23 of his order. The TPO has tabulated at page 23 the comparable security of the two loans. However, we find that the TPO has not examined the submission by the assessee that the security that the assessee had was better than the security obtained by Exim Bank. As the TPO has arrived at the ALP at LIBOR + 400 bps, without contradicting the submission of the assessee and the adoption of LIBOR + 400 bps is not based on any reasoning, we delete the transfer pricing adjustment TP adjustment - Corporate Guarantee Commission - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that aptly in the case of Everest Kento [2015 (5) TMI 395 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while commercial banks were stated to be charging 3% for guarantee, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court upheld ALP at 0.5%. Following the same, we hold that the Corporate Guarantee Commission be charged at 0.5%. Thus the 1st to 8th grounds of appeal are partly allowed. Re-compute the disallowance u/s 14Ar.w.r. 8D - CIT-A stating that disallowance not to exceed exempt income - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) clearly indicates that he has directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance u/s 14A by following the judicial decisions. We agree with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issues. Only addition we make is to direct the AO to also follow Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] Excluding disallowance u/s 14A while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to follow the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] for excluding the disallowance u/s 14A while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB.
|