Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1507 - AT - Income TaxTPA - selection of wrong comparables for benchmarking the international transaction - Held that:- Four comparables (i) Allsec Technologies Ltd., (ii) Maple E-solutions Ltd.; (iii) Asit C. Mehta and (iv) Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. (Coral Hub Ltd.) - et aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO to examine the validity of grievances shown by the assessee before the ITAT on the issue of choosing of the above four comparables for benchmarking the assessee’s international transactions after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Inclusion of functionally dissimilar companies as comparables for benchmarking the international transaction during the year - Held that:- This issue requires fresh consideration of the submissions of the assessee to meet the ends of justice. We thus set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of application of the twelve comparables with the assessee for benchmarking its international transaction and to decide as to whether the international transaction entered into by the assessee during the year are at arm’s length. Disallowance of deduction under sec. 10A in respect of assessee’s undertaking at Hyderabad acquired by way of slump sale from Digital Think (India) Pvt. - Held that:- We find that there is substance in the contention of the Learned AR that mere change in ownership does not result in denial of the deduction under sec. 10A of the Act. The only dispute raised in the ground is as to whether sec. 10A(2) of the Act applies or not. The CBDT Circular F. No. 178/84/2012 – ITA-1 dated 17.1.2013 has made it clear in relation to availability of tax benefit under sec. 10A, 10AA and 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in case of slump sales of an undertaking that on the sole ground of change in ownership of an undertaking, the claim of assumption cannot be denied to an otherwise eligible undertaking and the tax holiday can be available of for the unexpired period at the rate as application for the remaining years, subject to fulfillment of prescribed condition. We thus set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in view of the above submissions of the assessee supported by the CBDT Circular and the decisions relied upon after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground N0.4 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of interest paid to Kotak Mohindra Primus Ltd. (KMPL) under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for not withholding taxes - Held that:- We prima facie, find substance in the contention of the Learned AR that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that no tax was required to be deducted at source from the payment made to KMPL in terms of the exceptions carried out in sec. 194A of the Act as the provisions of sec.194A shall not apply where income is credited or paid to any banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applied, especially when there is no dispute that Kotak Mohindra Bank Ltd. is a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies and further that section 19 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 provides that a banking company shall not form any subsidiary company except a subsidiary company formed for under taking of any business which is permissible for a banking company to undertake. Again there is substance in the alternative submission of the assessee that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 201 and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act sought to be applied to cases prior to 01.07.2012 since the amendments are procedural in nature and are intended to remove the hardship being faced by the assessee, the amendments are declaratory and curative in nature and shall have retrospective effect. We thus set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the submission of the assessee that KMPL had duly furnished the return of income and had considered the interest income received from the assessee while computing its total income for the year under consideration and further that the taxes had also been paid by KMPL on such interest income for the year under consideration and decide the issue afresh in view of above submissions and cited decisions by the Learned AR after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground No. 5 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
|