Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 673 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - disallowance in respect of the investment in the wholly owned Indian subsidiaries - Held that:- The fund flow statement filed by the assessee is only regarding the fresh investment made by the assessee during the year which is otherwise excluded for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A being the investment in foreign companies. It is not clear from the record whether any disallowance was made on account of interest expenditure in the earlier assessment years. Since the investment was made in the earlier assessment years, therefore, the disallowance on account of interest expenditure has to be as per the funds available with the assessee and the finding on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A for the earlier years is relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue for the year under consideration. Similarly, the issue of disallowance on account of administrative expenses has to be decided keeping in view the finding of the earlier assessment years on this account. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside this issue to the record of Assessing Officer to decide this issue afresh by considering the finding of the earlier A.Ys on this issue and further in view of the decisions in case of JM Financial Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2014 (4) TMI 752 - ITAT MUMBAI) as well as Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2015 (2) TMI 628 - ITAT MUMBAI ). - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance u/s 80IB/80IC - allocation of expenses made by the assessee between eligible business and non-eligible business - Held that:- Keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2000 (11) TMI 136 - SUPREME Court) and having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the allocation of expenses made by the assessee between eligible business and non-eligible business for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80IB/80IC of the Act was reasonable and there was no justifiable reason for the A.O. to disturb the same and make reallocation on adhoc basis. We, therefore, delete the addition made by the A.O. by restricting the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB/80IC of the Act by reallocating the common indirect expenses - Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation on UPS - at the rate of 15% OR 60% - Held that:- We are in agreement with the view that computer accessories and peripherals such as, printers, scanners and server, etc., form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are the part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60 per cent. See CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd.[2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee. Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of sale of insecticide products to various AEs - Held that:- The concept of clubbing and aggregating the transaction is based on the premise that such transactions influenced by each other and particularly in determining the price and profit involved in the transactions then such transactions can safely be regarded as closely linked transactions. The OECD guidelines has referred a portfolio approach as business strategy consisting of tax payers bundling certain transaction for the purpose of earning an appropriate return across portfolio rather than single product. The assessee is selling various insecticide products used in the household at various strata of the society and, therefore, the products of the assessee are clearly falling under the one portfolio of same category of product and, therefore, the assessee can have a portfolio approach as a business strategy. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT (2013 (12) TMI 1007 - ITAT MUMBAI ). Thus we are of the view considered opinion that all the insecticide products sold by the assessee to its AE in each country shall be clubbed together for the purpose of determining the arm’s length price. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|