Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 215 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - Held that:- Respectfully following the order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 this issue relating to adjustment in Arm’s Length Price is set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication as in the preceding year wherein held assessee was entitled to select most appropriate method for a group of similar transactions. In doing so, he is free to choose difference methods for different business activities which in the present case are manufacturing physical trade & merchanting. Regarding additional evidence filed by the assessee in relation to documents from COVAT regarding import of oil, we find that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing these during assessment /DRP proceedings as the same were directed to be filed by DRP in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09 and DRP on the basis of these had not made any addition in these years. Therefore, we admit the additional evidence as these are documents to arrive at the correct conclusion. In view of all facts and circumstances of the case as explained above we deem it appropriate to remit back the whole issue relating to transfer pricing to the office of Assessing Officer who will re-adjudicate the issue keeping in view all facts and circumstances. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act for discounting charges - Held that:- Since the facts involved for the year under consideration for this issue are similar to the facts involved in the preceding assessment year 2006-07 wherein held that the discounting charges are not in the nature of interest paid by the assessee. Rather after deducting discount, the assessee received net amount of bill of exchange accepted by the purchaser CFA not having any PE in India is not liable to tax in respect of such discount earned by it and hence the assessee is not under obligation to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. Accordingly, the same amount cannot be disallowed by invoking section 40(a)(i) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- As decided in assessee's for the assessment year 2006-07 Assessing Officer himself arrived at the conclusion that assessee was not a direct registered shareholder in the lender company, therefore, relying upon various judgments as relied upon by Ld AR the loan received by assessee cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee. Credit of additional TDS disallowed - Held that:- A similar issue having identical facts was a subject matter of the assessee’s appeal in the assessment year 2006-07 wherein held The provisions of section 155(14) empowers the Assessing Officer to give credit for tax deduction certificates which could not be filed with the return of income provided they are filed within two years from the end of assessment year in which such income was assessable and further provided that such income from which tax was deducted was disclosed in the return of income filed by assessee for that relevant assessment year. The assessee in the present case did not file such certificates within prescribed period of two years but filed these before the assessment was completed on 26.8.2010. However, various provisions of Act suggest that tax payable will always be after giving credit of tax deducted at source from the income of assessee. Therefore, keeping in view the substantive justice, we direct the Assessing Officer to give credit for such additional TDS certificates provided the income from which such TDS was deducted formed part of income declared by assessee in the return of income. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes
|