Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1940 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - arm's length price of the technical service - CIT (A) restricting disallowance of technical services to 50% of amount claimed by the appellant - HELD THAT:- The issue in question is covered against the Revenue by virtue of the order passed by the Bangalore Bench of the tribunal in the case of M/s.Gemplus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2010 (10) TMI 184 - ITAT, BANGALORE] for assessment year 2003-2004. In the light of this order dated 21.10.2010, the learned Departmental Representative was fair enough to accept that the decision taken by the learned CIT(A) accords with the view taken by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the afore-noted case. In such circumstances, we are left with no choice but to uphold the impugned order on this issue and to this extent. No infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly we uphold the same. Additions u/s 115JB - CIT(A) treating unascertained liability confirming the addition to the book profit computed the income under Section 115JB of the Act - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has made provision for outstanding liabilities of revenue nature in its accounts. The estimated provisions were reversed in subsequent year. This has been the consistent practice of the assessee. The amounts debited were based upon past pattern of expenditure. However, since TDS had not been deducted by the assessee as individual parties were not identified, the sums were disallowed in normal computation by the assessee. The A.O. had made the disallowance under section 115JB on the ground that these were ascertained liability and TDS were not deducted. We note that the provision was made under normal accounting system as per past practice. The accounts were duly certified by the auditors. In such scenario, ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited vs. CIT [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] supports the case of the assessee. We are of the considered opinion that the authorities below have erred in adding back the impugned amounts u/s. 115JB. Hence, we direct for these deletion. Provision for disputed claim - amount in question was a provision for the sum towards security charges payable to Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust as per the concession agreement - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that it is the substance that counts and not the nomenclature given to it. In the present case, the assessee has received invoices from JNPT toward security charges. These were on account of deployment of CISF Personal. The payment for which was compulsory. The assessee accepted the liability but awaiting supporting documents made the debit in the name of disputed liability. As mentioned above, the name given by the parities is not determinative of the character of the transaction but it is the substance that counts. CIT(A) has noted that what was the ultimate fate of the liability has not been submitted before him. Even before us, the ld. Counsel of the assessee has not given details of the present position of this liability. In our considered opinion this aspect is crucial for proper adjudication of this issue. Hence, we remit this issue to the file of the A.O. to consider the issue afresh after ascertaining the present fate of the liability. Interest income qualify for deduction u/s. 80IA - HELD THAT:- Interest on fixed deposits in the bank would be profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking. The same reasoning would apply to extend deductions under Section 80IA of the Act for the compensation received for non-supply of spare parts. Thus, the issue stands concluded in favour of the appellant assessee by the decision of this Court in Jagdishprasad M. Joshi [2008 (11) TMI 326 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
|