Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 532 - AT - Income TaxClaim under section 10A rejected - Held that:- Respectfully following the principles laid down in CIT v. EHPT India P. Ltd. [2011 (12) TMI 49 - DELHI HIGH COURT] no need to disturb the method of apportionment of expenditure and turnover which were accepted by the AO in the earlier years. The assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 10A and the reason for disallowing entire claim cannot be accepted. Even the DRP was not correct in rejecting the assessee objection stating that the issue is pending before ITAT, the fact of which is not correct. However, in the anxiety of disallowing the entire claim, AO has not examined the apportionment of export turnover and expenses of units therefore matter is restored to the file of the AO to examine the issue of deriving at the profits of eligible unit. In favour of assessee. Reduction of technical fees and satellite link charges from export turnover - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) in the assessment year 2005-06 has followed the order of the ITAT while giving relief on "satellite charges" in the assessment year 2004-05,thus the satellite charges cannot be considered as "telecommunication charges" so as to exclude from the export turnover - alternate ground that the technical fees and satellite link charges should also be excluded from the total turnover in case they were to be excluded from the export turnover covered in favour of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements. in favour of assessee. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)- Held that:- Since this issue was crystallised by the order of the ITAT in the same assessment year, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise, as there is no need to deduct tax on the amount paid to Equant Network Services Ltd. Accordingly the disallowance made by the AO stands deleted. In favour of assessee. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of ITES services rendered by the assessee - Held that:- Since, the assessee was not been given proper opportunity to examine the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer and as the objections raised by the assessee are not examined or rebutted either by the Transfer Pricing Officer or by the Dispute Resolution Panel and considering the fact that the information obtained by the Transfer Pricing Officer with reference to certain comparables and segmental data was not even made available to the assessee, we are of the opinion that the issue has to be set aside to the file of the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arm's length price afresh after providing the information to the assessee which was collected by the Transfer Pricing Officer. In favour of assessee by way of remand.
|