|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 968 Records
-
2019 (1) TMI 1841 - ITAT MUMBAI
TP Adjustment - computation of Arm Length Price [ALP] of certain Corporate Guarantee given by assessee for its Associates Enterprises [AE] - only point urged during hearing by Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee [AR], Shri Hiro Rai, is that the ALP of the same should be computed @0.5% in terms of ratio of decision of this Tribunal rendered in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 1099 - ITAT MUMBAI]. HELD THAT:- TPO, adopting a rate of 2% pa., arrived at ALP of the same, based on number of days for which the CG remained in force. The adjustment thus worked out to ₹ 66.37 Lacs which was incorporated in the assessment order dated 24/04/2015. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT, in terms of judgment of this Tribunal rendered in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2013 (11) TMI 1583 - ITAT MUMBAI], reduced the same to 0.98%. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Upon due consideration of factual matrix, we find that since the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2012 (11) TMI 1099 - ITAT MUMBAI] in estimating the CG @0.5% has already been affirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we reduce the same to 0.5% per annum. The Ld. AO is directed to recompute the impugned addition in terms of this order. The appeal stands partly allowed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1840 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - share application received (the intrinsic value of the share in comparison to the excess premium received) - HELD THAT:- We find from the reasons recorded reproduced above that the AO failed to appreciate that the law does not permit him to reopen assessment unless he has tangible material on the basis of which he forms reason to belief that income has escaped assessment. The mere fact that the assessee has issued shares at a certain premium itself cannot be a reason to belief that income has escaped assessment. AO has neither mentioned by how much the shares are overvalued i.e. by what amount the premium exceeds the instinct value of the shares nor the amount, which according to him, has escaped assessment.
AO stated that income in the grab of share application money received in this case has escaped assessment but he could not point out on what basis / material does he belief that the share capital is not genuine. In the similar circumstances in the case of Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd [2016 (2) TMI 710 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that regular Return of income was assessed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was done. In the above view, to ascertain the nature and the justification for charging share premium, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that charging of share premium over and above the intrinsic value of the share is income which has escaped assessment.
Notice itself does not indicate the approximate amount of income, which the Assessing Officer has reason to believe has escaped assessment nor does it quantify the extent to which the share premium received was in excess of intrinsic value, which has escaped assessment. It gives no reasons to indicate the basis of coming to the conclusion that share premium is excessive and, therefore, income.
Moreover, the Notice also does not dispute that this is a share premium but seek justification for charging the share premium over and above intrinsic value of the share premium.
AO has absolutely no material to even suspect, forget believe that income has escaped assessment. Hence, we quash the reopening and accordingly, the issue of assessee’s appeal on jurisdiction is allowed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1838 - ITAT DELHI
TP Adjustment - upward adjustment on account of reimbursement of marketing, advertisement and brand promotion - HELD THAT:- We find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the immediately preceding assessment year, after considering the rival arguments made by both the sides had restored the issue to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh determination of the issue as held TPO did not have the benefit of the Special Bench order in the case of LG Electronics [2013 (6) TMI 217 - ITAT DELHI] and the DRP failed to apply it correctly to the facts of the case, by making sweeping observations generally without considering the effect of relevant factors laid down by the special bench. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO/TPO for a fresh determination of disallowance, if any, on account of Transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses.
Addition of the ‘Provision of support services in area countries’ - Comparable election - submission of the assessee that certain companies which were included by the assessee should not have been rejected by the TPO/DRP since the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the preceding years has accepted those companies as comparables - HELD THAT:- We find the order of the DRP is not a speaking order especially when in assessee’s own case, certain comparables were held to be accepted as comparables. Although the decision of the Tribunal was available for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2009-10 when the order of the DRP was passed, however, it appears that no cognizance has been taken by the DRP of the order of the Tribunal. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the ld. DRP to pass a speaking order relating to the various comparables which the assessee is challenging in its application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules and which have been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. DRP should also pass a speaking order on the issue relating to foreign exchange fluctuation/loss to be considered as operating item while computing the ALP of the international transaction. The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1836 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition on account of deposits in the bank account stated to be sourced from sale of agricultural land stood confirmed in appeal - HELD THAT:- Tax authorities have proceeded to take action qua the transactions against the most vulnerable person. There is nothing on record to show that the assessee having sold his land continued to have any hold over the purchasers. AO having full authority to call for their production in the peculiar facts instead of disbelieving the assessee ideally should have cross-checked the facts from the purchasers who consciously chose not to appear before the Department and may have reason to not address the correct facts.
In the facts of the present case, admittedly 30 Kanal 12 Marla have been sold in village Ferozepur Bangar, Distt. Mohali on 28.01.2011 as per the Sale Deed which has been taken note of by the Department. The fact that it reflected an amount of ₹ 47,81,250/- is a matter of fact. The short issue for consideration was the value of the land sold at the relevant point of time. The AO in the facts of the present case should have carried out necessary enquiries as he had the PAN details of the purchaser.
Accordingly, we find that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tax Authorities have failed to exercise their powers which they are vested with and in the face of the inability of the assessee to produce the concerned purchasers, the Department who has the PAN numbers and has traced the parties in Amritsar should have no hesitation in calling forth and examining the issues as the purchasers may be front-men of some builders etc. having deep pockets. The relevant facts in the form of the value of the specific property at the relevant point of time may also be a relevant aspect to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the issue is restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a speaking order - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1832 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Exemption u/s. 11 & 12 - as recorded by AO that the donations received from parents/students being provided with professional seats was not voluntary contributions - whether the assessee was running a charitable trust or not? - As per AO donations received from parents/students being provided with professional seats was not voluntary contributions envisaged u/s.11 & 12 - AO said donations collected from ‘Mediation Centre Fund’ was contrary to sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) - HELD THAT:- By the order dated [2019 (1) TMI 1829 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] was disposed off by answering the aforesaid questions of law. Since the very same questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal, the instant appeal is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order, by answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1831 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 195 - Data Processing Cost paid by the assessee–branch to its Head Office [HO] - whether such payment is based and determined on the usage of space/capacity and other keys towards usage of ICT infrastructure and further holding that the payment of Data Processing Cost is reimbursement of expenses and the provisions of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) are not applicable - HELD THAT:- Since the facts in the instant year are identical to ones as in the earlier years and accordingly we respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Benches hold that assessee is entitled for deduction of data processing cost as the same is not royalty but reimbursement of Data Processing Charges and therefore there is no requirement of deduction of tax at source from the said reimbursement. This ground of Revenue is dismissed.
Assessee-branch in India paid interest to its HO - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Benches in the earlier years [2005 (8) TMI 294 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E]wherein the Co-ordinate Benches have allowed the claim for deduction of interest paid by the branch office to its HO considering the fact that the assessee a banking company. The Calcutta High Court has held in the case of ABN Amro Bank [2010 (12) TMI 340 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]] where an assessee is an branch (PE) of non resident entity i.e its Head Office(G.E.) and the interest paid by the P.E. to G.E. allowable since branch (P.E.) is separate and distinct from head office(G.E.)for the purpose of assessment under the I.T.Act and also held that interest earned by the head office (G.E.) from branch office(P.E.) is not chargeable to tax in view of the specific provisions of Article 11 of DTAA between India and Netherland. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches, we dismiss the ground raised by Revenue.
Disallowance u/s. 14A - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on the ground that if there is any exempt income earned by the branch which is exempt under the Income Tax Act, only then the provisions of Section 14A could be applied - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case we found substantial merit in the contention of learned AR, however, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of the AO to find out if assessee was in receipt of any exempt income vis-a-vis interest paid to head office. If the AO found that assessee was not in receipt of any exempt income, no disallowance is to be made. Accordingly AO is directed to decide afresh after verification.
Interest income on Income Tax refund - to be charged only under Article 11(2) and not under Article 11(4) of Indo Belgium DTAA, despite the interest income being effectively connected with Permanent Establishment (PE) - CIT(A) held issue in favour of assessee by holding that under Article 11(2) of DTAA, gross amount of interest in all other cases may be taxed @ 15% and hence the rate of 15% is more beneficial than rate of 40% prescribed in the Finance Act, 2011 for Assessment Year. 2012-13 - HELD THAT:- After perusing the facts of the case of assessee and Article 11 of DTAA, we are of the considered view that interest income on income tax refund has to be taxed at the rate which is beneficial to assessee as the assessee is tax agent of Belgium. Apparently the beneficial rate is 15% under Article 11(2) of DTAA, which is lower than the 40% prescribed in the Finance Act, 2011 from AY. 2012-13 and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 90, the rate applicable would be 15% + surcharge. The case of assessee is squarely covered by the decisions as cited above, wherein the Co-ordinate Benches have held that the interest on IT refund received u/s. 244A has to be taxed at the rate which is beneficial to assessee
-
2019 (1) TMI 1829 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Exemption u/s. 11 & 12 - as recorded by AO that the donations received from parents/students being provided with professional seats was not voluntary contributions - Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration the finding recorded by the AO that the donations collected from 'Mediation Centre Fund' was contrary to sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) of the act and consequently recorded a perverse finding? - HELD THAT:- Questions No.2 and 3 are covered by the judgment of this Court in case of SRI. BELIMATHA MAHASAMSTHANA SOCIO CULTURAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST [2010 (3) TMI 854 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of the Assessee
-
2019 (1) TMI 1827 - ITAT AMRITSAR
LTCG on the sale of the property - Applicability of second proviso of Sec. 50C(1) - as submitted by the assessee that as an ‘agreement to sell’ was executed in respect of the property under consideration, therefore, the sale value was to be fixed as per the value therein taken and not as per that adopted by the subregistrar for the purpose of payment of stamp duty - HELD THAT:- As borne from the records that the assessee had claimed before the A.O that the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeded the fair market value of the property under consideration. However, we find that the objection raised by the assessee to the proposed adoption of the circle value/segment rate by the A.O for the purpose of computing the LTCG on the sale of the property was however bypassed by the A.O, who reworked the LTCG by adopting the circle value/segment rate as the deemed ‘sale consideration’.
When the A.O despite specific objection raised by the assessee that the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeded the fair market value of the property under consideration, had however failed to refer the matter to the valuation officer for ascertaining the same, therefore, the reworking of the LTCG by him not being in conformity with the mandate of law cannot be accepted. We thus are of a strong conviction that as the very mandate of law prescribed under the statute had whimsically been bypassed by the A.O, therefore, the consequential addition of ₹ 72,00,000/- made by him on the basis of the impugned reworking of the capital gains cannot be sustained, and deserves to be deleted.
We set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and delete the addition made - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1822 - ITAT CHENNAI
Non deduction of TDS - CIT-A deleted the disallowance on the ground that the recipient has offered the said amount and also paid taxes - assessee has not filed certificate in Form 26A for the purpose of claiming deduction - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the recipient has offered the amount received from the assessee and also paid taxes. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue. The only objection of the Ld. D.R. is that Form 26A was not produced. Since the recipient has paid the taxes in respect of the amount received by the assessee, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the disallowance. Hence, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1818 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained Share Premium - HELD THAT:- In response to a query raised by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, the authorized representative of the assessee-company filed a reply vide letter dated 25.03.2015 stating inter alia that reasonable opportunity be given to examine the documents on the basis of which allegation has been made; cross-examine the parties which is alleged to be bogus etc.
Also in the cross objection the assessee has stated that the AO did not make available to the respondent of the materials based on which such addition is made, despite the request of the respondent during assessment. Also it has been stated in the cross objection filed by the assessee that the AO did not grant cross-examination of the parties to the respondent, despite the request of the respondent during assessment.
We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to make a de novo order after examining the aforesaid parties and allowing the assessee opportunity to cross-examine them. We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1816 - ITAT PUNE
Depreciation on cars for personal use by the directors of the assessee company - AO noticed that the cars were not purchased in the name of the assessee but its directors thus made disallowance invoking the provisions of section 38(2) - HELD THAT:- AO has basically made disallowance u/s. 38(2) of the Act. The very fact that he allowed depreciation @ 50% of the amount claimed on cars goes to prove that he accepted the ownership of cars in the name of the assessee company.
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company [2001 (7) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that there cannot be any disallowance of personal expenses for cars on account of personal use by the director. It has been further held that no disallowance can be made even by treating such expenditure as not having been incurred for the business purpose. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in several cases including Dy. CIT vs. Haryana Oxygen Ltd. [1999 (12) TMI 107 - ITAT DELHI-D]. Thus it is evident that there can be no disallowance on account of personal use by the director-employees of the assessee. Such an amount can be treated as a perquisite in the hands of the employees - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1814 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of audit objection - legal issue or factual mistake - change of opinion or not - HELD THAT:- Assessment was reopened on the basis of audit objection by audit party and there is no application of mind by the AO on this issue. We find merit in the arguments of ld. AR that the there is no satisfaction by the AO and there is no application of mind and the notice has been issued in a mechanical manner, taking the audit objection verbatim in the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment.
AO has acted upon the borrowed satisfaction of the audit party, The case of the assessee is supported by the decision of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 160 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in which it has been held that opinion by the audit party cannot constitute a tangible material and reassessment was held to be not valid - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1812 - ITAT DELHI
Reassessment proceedings - unexplained investment under Section 69 - undated reasons recorded u/s 148 - HELD THAT:- Since the facts and circumstances in the instant case are identical to the facts and circumstances in the case of Subhash Khattar [2017 (7) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT] thus, respectfully relying on the decision we are of the opinion that no addition could have been made in the instant assessment year in absence of any incriminating material found from the premises of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1805 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction of service charges paid to the employees - bogus claim as the employees, who were examined by the AO had denied having received any service charges - HELD THAT:- What is paid to the employees is only out of the amount collected from the customers in the form of the service charges but the total service charges paid to the employees far exceeds the amount collected. This fact undoubtedly raises doubts as to the genuineness of the claim made. Perhaps, this would have triggered the AO to enquire into the genuineness of the claim. As a part of inquiry into the claim, the AO had examined certain employees, who had denied having received any such service charges. However, this would not lead to a conclusion that the claim is untenable in view of the fact that the employees, who were examined by the AO may not be working during that relevant time.
Onus of proving the claim always lies on the assessee. But, the present case, the assessee-company failed to lead any evidence to prove the claim.
CIT(A) had merely based on the presumptions that the assessee-company would have paid to the employees to the extent of the service charges collected and allowed the claim to the extent of service charges collected. Further, the ld. CIT(A) had not even examined whether the service charges are really collected by the assessee-company nor was any evidence was discussed in the order in support of the claim for the expenditure. CIT(A) had proceeded on assumptions and presumptions while granting the partial relief. Order of the ld. CIT(A) is also not supported by any material on record. CIT(A) also failed to note that the facts necessary to prove the claim would be within knowledge of the assessee and it is the duty of the assessee alone to prove that what is claimed is true and correct
AO was justified in drawing adverse inference on the claim and the ld. CIT(A) ought not have granted any relief in the absence of any evidence in support of the claim. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed the Revenue are allowed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1797 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271AAB - undisclosed income - Invalid notice u/s 274 - proper explanation and disclosure was given during the course of search action in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) and the disclosure so made was offered to tax in the return of income filed - HELD THAT:- Assessee with the panel provisions, it is pre-requisite that it should be evident from the notice, the intend and purpose for levying penalty as the purpose of the notice is to inform the assessee as to the specific charge for which he has been show caused so that he could furnish his reply without any confusion and to the point. In the present case, neither the assessee nor anyone else could make out as to whether the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act was issued for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income disabling it to meet with the case of the Assessing Officer. There are a catena of judgments highlighting the necessity for identifying the charge for which the assessee is being visited and in all those decisions, Hon'ble Courts have repeatedly held that where the jurisdictional notice is vague, similar to the one in the present case, the consequent levy cannot be sustained.
The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had also occasion to consider a similar issue. In this case, though proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act in the standard form, the charge for which it was issued was also not identified, as in the present case.
We hold that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 and incorporated 271AAB (in hand) was not valid. Consequently, the penalty proceedings are also invalid. Since the very basis of levy of penalty has been held to be invalid, we are of the view that the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the merits of the levy of penalty requires no adjudication at this stage - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1796 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A - computing the average value of investment for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A which are incapable of yielding tax free income - HELD THAT:- AO cannot adopt the average value of the total investment instead of the average value of investment of which income is not part of a total income i.e. value of tax exempt investment. In view of this binding precedent, we find that the AO had to consider only those investments which have actually yielded the tax exempt income during the relevant year and not the total investment.
On the aspect of the contention of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to some reasonable proportion of actual dividend received and such disallowance cannot in any case, exceed exempt dividend income earned during the relevant year , this proposition is based on the decision Joint Investments P. Ltd. vs CIT [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as holds the field and while respectfully following the same, we find that the disallowance shall not exceed the exempt income.
Set aside the issue and remand the matter to the file of the learned AO to work out the disallowance by calculating the average investment under Rule 8D(2)(ii)/(iii) by taking only those investments which have actually yielded the dividend income during the relevant year and if it exceeds the exempt income, then restrict the same to the extent of exempt income only. Ground Nos. 1 and Additional Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of prior period expense - according to the assessee, this payment was audit fee payable to statutory auditor, namely Price Waterhouse Cooper and the expenses are pertaining to the year under consideration only on which the assessee had duly deducted the tax at source - CIT(A) found that there is inherent contradiction in the stand taken by the assessee inasmuch as according to him, there was payment of TDS on the payments made to the auditor and disallowance u/s 40( a) (ia) while computing the taxable income - HELD THAT:- No reason to interfere with the findings of learned CIT(A) and it is not substantiated before us as to how the findings of the learned CIT(A) are incorrect. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A).
Short credit of TDS - CIT(A) recorded that the assessee submitted an application for rectification and it was still pending - HELD THAT:- Learned CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim after proper verification.
Claim of the brought forward loss and depreciation - CIT(A) directed the learned AO to allow the same after proper verification - HELD THAT:- We do not find anything illegal or irregular in these directions of the learned CIT(A).
-
2019 (1) TMI 1795 - ITAT MUMBAI
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Accentia Technologies Ltd. is engaged in the business of developing software products and it does have any segmental information for its services segment and software products segment. Though the Ld D.R sought time to find out availability of segmental details, yet no such information was provided before us. Accordingly, the absence of segmental information would make this company incomparable. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company.
E-clerx Services Ltd. cannot be compared with assessee being a KPO company.
M/s. Mold-Tech Technologies Limited is a KPO company providing structural engineering services. Further during the year under consideration, extra ordinary events like amalgamation and demerger have taken place. Hence, there is merit in the contentions of the assessee that this company cannot be taken as a comparable.
M/s. Acropetal Technologies Limited comparable has two segments namely engineering design service segment and Information technology service segment.TPO has considered engineering design service segment and compared the same with the assessee company. As noticed earlier the assessee company is providing routine ITE services to its AEs as a captive service provider. Identical scenario was considered in the case of Symphony Marketing Solution India P. Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 83 - ITAT BANGALORE] and this comparable has been excluded.
Since all the above said four companies have been directed to be excluded, arithmetic mean margin of comparable requires to be redetermined and it also requires to be seen as to whether any addition, if any, is called for or not. Accordingly, we restore the issue of determining mean margin of comparables to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining it afresh by excluding four comparable companies.
Disallowance u/s 14A - A.R submitted that the disallowances made while computing the profits and gains of business shall also be eligible for deduction u/s 10A - prayed that the AO may be directed to allow deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- This claim of the assessee requires examination in terms of the circular issued by CBDT. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of AO for examining the same.
Claim for credit of TDS amount - HELD THAT:- We restore this issue also to the file of the AO, as it requires examination of relevant TDS certificates and income declared by the assessee.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1793 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - ‘payment’ made by the assessee-company to its subsidiary during the previous year - Tribunal confirming the deletion of the entire addition - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue was threadbare analysed by the CIT(A) in his order after calling for a remand report. This finding recorded by the CIT(A) was correct, as there is no payment made by the assessee-company to its subsidiary during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 2004-05 within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
Thus, we find that the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal has considered the factual position and granted relief to the assessee. Thus, we find there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1792 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - provision for warranty - Tribunal quashing the revision order of CIT-A - HELD THAT:- Provision made on the basis of turnover on same or similar percentage year after year follows a rationale and scientific method of making a provision for such warranty. The actual claims made by the customers against such warranty provision cannot be the sole criteria, to be labelled as the scientific method, as contended by the Revenue, before us. It is the consistency and the commercial prudence of the assessee, in which the assessee chose to make a provision for warranty based on his total turnover figure, which cannot be said to be unscientific, by any stretch of imagination. Such decisions, taken in normal commercial prudence, cannot be interfered with or superseded by the tax authorities.
Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the revisional proceedings under section 263 of the Act in such circumstances were not at all justified. Accordingly, we answer the question of law, framed above, in favour of the assessee
-
2019 (1) TMI 1791 - ITAT RAIPUR
Late filing of fees u/s.234E - intimation u/s.200A - at what point of time chargeability of levying fees can be done even prior to the amendment was effected i.e.1.06.2015? - HELD THAT:- Prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision of section 200A of the Act for making adjustment in respect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under section 234E - AO has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee u/s.234E while processing the statement and made adjustment u/s.200A of the Act which is not justified. Thus while processing statement under section 200A the AO cannot make any adjustment by levying fee under section 234E prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, fee levied by the AO under section 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source was beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the Act and be deleted the same the eye of law.
The Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sibia Healthcare [2015 (6) TMI 437 - ITAT AMRITSAR] has opined that the matter in question was if the fees u/s.234E in respect of defaults in furnishing TDS statement could be levied in intimation u/s.200A of the Act so far as period prior to 1.06.2015 was concerned. It was held that the impugned levy of fee u/s.234E was unsustainable in law.
On perusal and analyzing the details , it is absolutely clear that prior to 1.6.2015, there was no enabling provision in section 200A of the Act for raising a demand in respect of levying fee u/s.234E of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the intimation u/s.200A of the Act as confirmed by the Ld. CIT so far as levying of fees u/s.234E of the Act is, therefore, set aside and the fees levied is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
............
|
