Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 121 - AT - Income TaxAd hoc disallowance of travelling expenses @20% - HELD THAT:- Since these expenses have already been allowed by the Assessing Officer in the previous years and there is no change in facts and circumstances of the assessee’s business therefore, based on the principle of consistency, these expenses should be allowed in the year under consideration. See RADHASOAMI SATSANG VERSUS CIT [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss - HELD THAT:- This issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra. We note that the loss pertaining to foreign exchange fluctuation is an allowable expenditure for that we rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] . Thus allow the claim of the assessee. Disallowance u/s 56(2)(viib) - issuance of shares with premium - share application money was received by the company from its parent company, ‘Chryso SAS’, a non-resident company - FMV as per Rule 11(UA)(2) - HELD THAT:- We note that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib), does not apply to consideration received from a non-resident. Hence, the disallowance made by the AO under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, should be deleted. Determination of arm’s length price by TPO / A.O. for management and other administrative services received by the assessee by considering the ALP as NIL - HELD THAT:- Assessee has established the nature of services including quantum of services received by the related party, that services were provided in order to meet specific need of the Assessee for such services, the economic and commercial benefits derived by the Assessee of intra-group services. Issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case and there is no change in facts and law and the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings. Therefore, we are of the view that arm’s length price adjustment made by the DRP/Assessing Officer in respect of management services - Decided in favour of assessee.
|