Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1539 - AT - Income TaxLocal doctors' meeting expenses/individual doctor's services disallowed - Held that:- By the Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002, expenditure on the doctors became unethical in the hands of doctors and it is stated so. However, whether the said expenditure is for the purpose of business or not is entirely a different aspect. Therefore, those observations will not have any binding on the issue. The claim of expenditure has to be examined vis-a-vis the provisions of section 37(1). Therefore, we do not see any reason to modify the directions in the order. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to keep the above aspects in mind while deciding the issue. Allocation of corporate overheads to the unit entitled to deduction under sections 10B and 80-IB - Held that:- In the assessee's own case for the assessment year 200304, the issue was discussed and allocation of basic turnover was accepted in the assessee's case and so, we are of the opinion that the decision of the hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever [2012 (12) TMI 166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has no bearing as binding precedent, being on the facts. As rightly pointed out by the learned Departmental representative, the hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Prestige Foods [2012 (6) TMI 266 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has upheld apportionment of expenditure between two units based on turnover and this judgment was distinguished by the hon'ble Madras High Court vide paragraph 7, on the reason that the assessee did not furnish expenses incurred by the units for the purpose of considering the deductibility. Since common expenditure is directed to be examined by the Assessing Officer and allocated to various units on the basis of turnover, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee. Rate of interest to be charged on loans granted to associated enterprises - TPA - Held that:- 7 per cent. rate is reasonable which is equivalent to LIBOR + 2 per cent. Be that as it may, since the assessee has accepted 7 per cent. in the earlier year and that is the basis for directing to adopt 7 per cent. by the Tribunal, we do not see any reason to modify the directions of the Tribunal in this regard.- Decided against assessee. Non-consideration of revised return filed by the assessee giving effect to merger - Held that:- Since the ground is only with reference to consideration of revised return and not for the information therein, the Tribunal restricted itself to acceptance of revised return and rejected the contention as the revised return was belated. Further, the decision of NEPC India Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] now being relied in miscellaneous application has not been placed before the Bench at the time of arguments. Therefore, consideration or non-consideration of the same does not arise. Moreover, the assessee has not taken any alternate ground that effect of merger should be considered in the assessment proceedings on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal cannot traverse beyond the ground raised before it and, accordingly, restricted itself whether the revised return can be considered as valid or invalid. In these circumstances, the contention raised by the assessee has no merit and accordingly rejected.- Decided against assessee.
|