Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 346 - AT - Income TaxTP adjustment of guarantee commission - HELD THAT:- There are number of decision such as CIT Vs. Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 395 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Thomas Cook India Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2016 (5) TMI 262 - ITAT MUMBAI] are on record in which the guarantee commission has been restricted to the extent of 0.5% of guarantee amount. In view of the above mentioned law, we are of the view that it would be the reasonable to determination the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in connection with the guarantee commission @ 0.5% of the guarantee amount. Accordingly. we set aside the finding of the DRP in this regard and restrict the guarantee fee @ 0.5% of the guarantee amount. Accordingly we decide the issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Addition of notional interest on loan given to associate enterprises - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee has charged @ 9.5% of the per annum, therefore, there is no need for making the TPO adjustment in this regard. Accordingly, we are of the view that the DRP has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Addition of notional interest on investment in subsidiary as deemed loan - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the issue has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 [2014 (11) TMI 845 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Accordingly, we are of the view that the DRP has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Disallowance of ESI u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we noticed that the assessee deposited the contribution towards employees ESIC earlier to the due date of filing the return of income, therefore, no doubt in the said circumstances, the same is not liable to be disallowed. DRP has also relied upon the decision of the various authorities which has been mentioned in the order. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the DRP has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- The assessee has earned the dividend income of ₹ 1,11,636/- and suo-motu disallowed. At the very outset, the assessee agreed to restrict the disallowance to the extent of dividend income, therefore, in the said circumstances and by relying upon the law settled in PCIT Vs. State Bank of Patiala [2018 (11) TMI 1565 - SC ORDER] we restrict the addition to the extent of dividend income to the tune. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D and computation of book profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.V/s. DCIT [ 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] directing the AO to work out the disallowance on a reasonable basis and not under Rule 8D under the Income Tax Rules for the A.Y. 2007-08. The Tribunal has merely followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and no fault can be found with the same. MAT computation - the matter of controversy has already been discussed and decided in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. [ 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] . In view of the above mentioned decision, we are of the view that the provisions of u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D is not applicable upon the books profit u/s 115JB. Accordingly, we delete the said addition raised against the assessment u/s 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
|