Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 375 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - comparability - Held that:- There is no reason given by the ld. CIT(A) regarding rejection of various comparables by the TPO and hence, we feel it proper to restore the entire matter on TP issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision by way of speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Interest payable to Central Excise Department disallowed Trade mark expenses - Nature of expenses - revenue v/s capital - Held that:- The payment in question cannot be said to be a payment in the nature of royalty because, in the present case, fixed lump sum was paid for purchase of trade markSince the nature of asset acquired is a capital asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act, it cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure and therefore, this ground of the assessee is rejected. Claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA - AO held that sec.80JJAA was restricted to additional wages paid to employees who have worked for more than 300 days during the relevant period irrespective of whether they were employed on a permanent basis or otherwise - Held that:- As per provisions of section 80JJAA as reproduced above, the deduction is allowable for three years including the year in which the employment is provided. Hence, in each of such three years it has to be seen that the workmen was employed for at least 300 days during that previous year and that such work men was not a casual workmen or workmen employed through contract labour. Therefore, if some work men were employed for a period less than 300 days in the previous year then no deduction is allowable in respect of payment of wage to such work men in the present year even if such work men was employed in the preceding year for more than 300 days but in the present year, such work men was not employed for 300 days or more. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue upholding the action of the DCIT in not granting the deduction u/s 80JJAA in respect of the workmen who were employed by the appellant during the year but whose duration of working in that year was less than 300 days. Grant of deduction u/s 35(2AB) - Held that:- In the present case, 21.09.2004 is the date of issuing of notification notifying the automobile components as eligible articles for deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. In a case, where an industry is in the list of approved industry, but the assessee applies for approval of its unit after the start of the previous year and the same is approved by DSIR, then deduction can be allowed from April even if the approval is granted on a later date in the same year. But in the present case, till 20th September, 2004, automobile components was not an approved article for deduction u/s 35(2AB) and therefore, the approval granted after this date cannot relate back prior to this and therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). This ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected, because on both these aspects of the matter, there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) i.e. regarding netting of reimbursement of expenses and date of notification.
|