Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1328 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IC - AO excluded the transport subsidiary, transport recoveries, claims received, miscellaneous income and sundry balances written back and net gain on exchange difference forming part of the income of such eligible units and in reducing the income claim - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's case [2016 (4) TMI 1163 - ITAT MUMBAI] Departmental Authorities have not examined the nature of subsidy with reference to the relevant industrial policy resolution and subsidy schemes, we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. As far as the issue of particular assessment year in which the subsidy deemed to have accrued, we may observe, the Assessing Officer did not raise this issue in course of assessment proceedings - thus the issue is hereby restored before the AO to decide the matter of controversy on the similar direction Addition of the expenditure incurred for by back shares which is revenue in nature and is allowable u/s 37(1) - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's case [2016 (4) TMI 1163 - ITAT MUMBAI] assessee’s claim was not considered only for the reason that it was not made through a revised return of income. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] restriction imposed therein for not entertaining a claim otherwise by way of revised return of income is only applicable to the Assessing Officer. That being the case, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for considering afresh in the light of the decision relied upon by the assessee. - the issue is hereby restored before the AO to decide the matter of controversy on the similar direction as given by Hon’ble ITAT above TP Adjustment - corporate guarantee to its overseas A.E - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's case [2016 (4) TMI 1163 - ITAT MUMBAI] there is no dispute that the internal CUP by way of letter received from HSBC indicates that the commission charged for financial guarantee is 0.5%. Further, it is relevant to note that the Department in assessee’s own case has accepted the arm's length price of corporate guarantee @ 0.5% in the assessment year 2006–07 and 2007–08. Thus, on consideration of overall facts and circumstances in the light of judicial pronouncements referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the arm's length price of the corporate guarantee should be fixed at 0.5%. The Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer is directed to make adjustment accordingly. Adopting the rate of 11.86% as the arm's length rate based on corporate bond rate - HELD THAT:- Rate of interest applicable in the country where the loan has been consumed in the case Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1087 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] ). The Hon’ble High Court further, affirmed the applicable rate of interest in the case where the assessee company had given the loan to its form AE. - We set aside the finding of the CIT(A) and restore the issue before the AO to apply the rate of interest prevailing in the country where the loan has been given/consumed. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
|