Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1743 - AT - Income TaxUpward adjustment under arm's length on loan and advance in foreign currency to its 100% foreign subsidiary - assessee had charged interest @5% on the loan from 01/01/2010 onwards - LIBOR rate applicability - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for earlier AYs it has been consistently held in several decisions by the tribunal that wherever the transaction of loan between the associated enterprises is in foreign currency then the transaction would have to be looked upon by applying the commercial principles in regard to international transaction. Therefore the domestic prime lending rate would have no applicability and the international rate LIBOR would come into play. It has therefore been held that LIBOR rate has to be considered while determining the arms length rate of interest in respect of transactions of loan in foreign currency between the associated enterprises. This view has also been accepted in COTTON NATURALS (I) PVT. LTD. VERSUS VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), NEW DELHI [2013 (6) TMI 174 - ITAT DELHI] - decided against revenue Disallownace u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- As decided in DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS ASHISH JHUNJHUNWALA [2013 (6) TMI 545 - ITAT KOLKATA] AO has not examined the accounts of the assessee and there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO about the correctness of the claim of the assessee and without the same he invoked Rule 8D of the Rules. While rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to expenditure or no expenditure in relation to exempted income, the AO has to indicate cogent reasons for the same but from the facts of the present case it is noticed that the AO has not considered the claim of the assessee and straight away embarked upon computing disallowance under Rule 8D of the Rules on presuming the average value of investment at ½% of the total value. - decided against revenue Delayed deposit of employees’ contribution toward PF without considering section 2(24)(x) r.w. Section 36(1)(va) - Held that:- As the issue is squarely covered by the various judgments of Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunals in assessee’s case wherein it was held that if the assessee paid the employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund within the due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Then there should not be any disallowance. Since the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the ratio laid down in the judgments of Hon`ble Calcutta High Court,in the case of CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Limited [2011 (9) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] we allow the claim of the assessee
|