|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 541 Records
-
2014 (6) TMI 1040
Payment made as kickbacks to Iraqi authorities - illegal payment within the provisions of Section 37(1) and paid under the "Oil for Food Programme" of UNO and a CBDT Memorandum No.414/117/2005-IT (Inv,-1) dated 18.11.2005 read with Volcker Committee's Report which confirmed the illegality of the payments - nature of commission payment - HELD THAT:- As decided in case of TIL Limited vs. ACIT [ 2007 (3) TMI 404 - ITAT KOLKATA ] Volker Commission Report, so far as the same is offending to the interests of India, is mainly concerned about doling out permits to various parties including some Indian parties as well to procure oil from Iraqi oil fields at controlled/subsidized rates and have no direct connection with supply of tractors and allied materials to Iraq. Hence, in our view, there is no sound basis for connecting the appellant’s case to the Volker Commission Report. It is also apparent that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had access to the said Volker Commission Report. Hence, this particular allegation about the appellant’s name being mentioned in the Volker Commission Report cannot stand.
Records show that even these contingencies also did not arise in this case as neither the name of appellant company has been proved to have figured in the Volker Commission Report nor has the payment been proved to be of the nature of a kick-back nor even it has been shown that the necessary permission from UN was not taken. So far as the nature of the payment is concerned, it has clearly been established that the payment was made purely for the purpose of procuring export order of Forklift Trucks to Iraq and also certain after-sales services performed by the Agent in Iraq and was of the nature of commission payment.
As stand taken by the learned CIT(A) that in absence of deduction of tax at source from the payment, it is hit by the provisions of section 40(a)( i) of the Act, also is not tenable. There is nothing on record to show that any part of the activities of the Iraq; Agent was performed in India. The payment was also received by them in Jordan. Absence of any Permanent Establishment or Business connection of the Agent in India also takes the case out of the purview of the deeming provisions regarding accrual of income in India as envisaged in section 5(2) - in this case, neither was the Commission payment received by the non-resident Agent in India nor did any income accrue or arise nor is deemed to accrue or arise to it in India. Hence, there was no liability on the part of the appellant company to deduct any tax from the amount of Commission payment made by it to the Iraqi Agent in terms of the provisions of section 195 of the Act .- there is nothing on record to show that the full amount as claimed by the appellant company was not actually paid or that some part of it was routed back to the appellant company or its Directors in an indirect or underhand way. Therefore, there is no case for disallowing the Commission payment in this case from any angle whatsoever. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we hold the Commission payment under consideration is fully allowable. We therefore, reverse the orders of the lower authorities and delete the entire disallowance in this regard. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1038
Addition u/s 68 - addition on account of bogus sundry creditors, the genuineness of which, the assessee utterly failed to prove - HELD THAT:- A.O. has rejected the books of account by mentioning numerous defects therein which has been discussed from page 2 to 9 of the assessment order. Thus there is implied rejection of books of account. To meet out any pilferage, etc., by enhancing and increasing the net profit rate, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has justified his action.
The trade creditors, obviously have to be included in the turnover of the year and in case of a civil contractor, the net taxable income can be arrived by applying the net profit rate of the total receipts. Although a lumpsum addition has been sustained by invoking different net profit rate, but a separate addition of sundry creditors by treating them as bogus, particularly, when these are trade creditors, the entire amount qua them is not justified. When the assessee is showing receipt of all these creditors and in that case even if the names and complete addresses thereof could not be given but the trade creditors cannot be treated at par with the cash creditors. - Appeal of the department stands dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1037
Disallowance 40(a)(ia) - expenses paid by the assessee company to its associate company on cost sharing basis - HELD THAT:- If these expenses have been incurred in the business of the associate/subsidiary and these are payments made to the regular employees employed by the subsidiary/associate and towards their salary, then, the reimbursement of such expenses by the present assessee would not require it to make any deduction.
Tax would not be required to be deducted at source. In such circumstances and going by the factual position which is undisputed, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not required to answer any larger question or decide a wider controversy. Even we are not required to go into the same considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the nature of the arrangement. The payment is thus, not for any service but as reimbursement of expenses is the conclusion reached upon noticing the undisputed factual position. In such circumstances, the view taken is a possible view and the appeal, therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal, is therefore, dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1034
Disallowance of deduction of administration and interest expenses etc. - appellant is not carrying on any business and income of the appellant is assessable under the head “income from other sources - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2012 (11) TMI 658 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] there was no change in the amounts outstanding as on 31/03/2003 and 31/03/2004 . We have also noted that the amount of interest accrued was also identical in figures, found to be outstanding as on 31/03/2003 and 31/03/2004. Meaning thereby that there was no accrual of interest liability, though admittedly the ld.AR has stated before us that “mercantile system” of accounting was adopted by the assessee. In that case, the assessee has to prove the basis on which the interest expenditure was claimed. A.O. is hereby directed to proceed accordingly as per law.
In respect of the interest portion, since the facts are identical in this year also, we restore this issue back to the file of AO in the light of the decision passed by the Tribunal. Since the facts are identical in this year also, therefore the issue is restored back to the file of AO for fresh decision. Thus, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of setting off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation u/s.32(2) against “income from other sources” - HELD THAT:- In the case in hand, the assessee-company is under liquidation and, therefore, no activity is being carried out by the assessee. However, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Virmani Industries Pvt.Ltd. [1995 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] would be applicable to the extent for availing the benefit u/s.32(2) of the Act. The assessee need not carry on any business or profession. It is not coming out of the records that from which year the depreciation was being carried forward by the assessee and why the assessee has accepted the decision of the ld.CIT(A) in the Asst.Year 2004-05 since no ground against the rejection of claim was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal in [2012 (11) TMI 658 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] . In the present year, the CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered in the AY 2004-05. Under these facts, we are unable to accept the claim of the assessee and, therefore, this ground is rejected.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1032
Disallowance of provision made for Leave Encashment on accrual basis - HELD THAT:- Assessee at the outset submitted that the above ground is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sister concern namely Serum Institute of India Ltd. In view of the above, the first ground by the assessee is dismissed.
Claim of deduction of PMS fees from the capital gain - Claim u/s.48 against the Short Term Capital Gain declared in the return of income on sale of shares - Justification for claim under the head “Capital Gain” - capital gain’ or ‘business income' - HELD THAT:- As decided in KRA Holding [2013 (9) TMI 1013 - ITAT PUNE] e Tribunal in assessee’s own case has already taken a view in favour of the assessee. Since the AO & CIT(A) have followed the order for earlier year in the case of the assessee and since the order of CIT(A) for earlier year has been reversed by the Tribunal, therefore, unless and until the decision of the Tribunal is reversed by a higher court, the same in our opinion should be followed. In this view of the matter, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2004-05 allow the claim of the Portfolio Management fees as an allowable expenditure.
We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) allowing the claim claimed u/s.48 against the Short Term Capital Gain declared in the return of income on sale of shares. Grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1031
Trading addition - applying net profit rate @ 6.5% subject to allowability of depreciation, interest and remuneration to partners - HELD THAT:- In this case, the past history of the assessee is available and in the immediately past A.Y., net profit rate of 5.85% has been accepted. Therefore, in continuity of consistent view taken by us, we direct that 5.85% in place of 6.5% adopted by the ld. CIT(A) has to be considered and whatever trading addition remains to be added can be added. With this observation, we partly allow ground raised in cross objection and dismiss the ground raised in appeal by the revenue.
Characterization of income - Treating the interest from FDRs as income from other sources or business income - HELD THAT:- Facts of the case are that by the assessee the FDRs were raised on the compulsion of taking contract from Government department on which interest accrued to the assessee. This is also a settled position of law that in such civil contract cases, when necessarily the FDRs have to be purchased and have to be kept as security for obtaining contracts, such interest received is treated as business income
-
2014 (6) TMI 1030
Addition as capital gain in respect of disallowance u/s 54EC for late investment of REC Bonds - Admission of additional ground - HELD THAT:- Ground raised by the assessee in terms of nature of land u/s 2(14) of the Act is a legal ground, as such in the interests of substantial justice in order to decide the issue of taxability of the specific income stated to have arisen as a result of sale of a specific land the issue is germane and goes to the root of the matter, the same is directed to be admitted.
Considering the plea of additional evidence we also hold that the same is relevant and crucial for determining the issue as such the same is also directed to be admitted. The prayer of the Ld. Sr. DR, Mr. Sameer Sharma that the issue has to be restored to the AO has merit as the facts necessarily are required to be looked into at the stage of the Assessing Officer.
After admitting the additional ground and the additional evidence to restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate thereon by way of a speaking order in accordance with law. The additional evidence filed by the assessee needless to say shall be taken into consideration while deciding the issue. The assessee would be at liberty to place whatever other evidence it has in its possession order to support its claim. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1029
MAT - Computation of book profit - computing deemed income u/s. 115JA - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the auditors have not certified that the books of account were properly maintained in accordance with the provision of the Companies Act. The auditors in their certificate have indicated that the depreciation was not charged to the Profit & Loss A/c. and therefore, the certificate was subject to Note No.9 amongst others.
Submissions advanced by Mr. Khaitan must prevail. The Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss A/c., except as provided in the statute, in those cases where the accounts have been properly maintained.
When the Statute provides for computation of book profit of the assessee being a Company which has computed the total income under this Act in respect of any previous year, it has to be implied that the legislature intended to mean that the assessee, being a Company, has computed total income correctly as per the provisions of the Act. If the total income has not been correctly computed, then the bar created limiting the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer would not be operative. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings of the learned Tribunal indicated above are reversed.
Net profit computation for the purposes of section 115JA - On account of depreciation, the learned Tribunal opined that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to tinker with the books of accounts certified by the auditors, but with regard to this item of expenditure, the learned Tribunal exhorted the Assessing Officer to tinker with the books of accounts. There was no question of allowing any adjustment as per Explanation to Section 115JA. The prior period expenditure amounting to a sum of ₹ 1,28,986/- was already shown in the profit and loss account as per accounting standards. The learned Tribunal purported to disallow the aforesaid expenditure on the basis of a mistaken belief that the assessee was seeking adjustment of the aforesaid sum in computing the book profit but missed the fact that the expenditure had already been taken into account in computing the net profit.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1028
Depreciation on leased assets - ownership on machinery - HELD THAT:- In the instant case admittedly, the machinery is owned by the assessee. The assessee had leased that machinery to its customers. That is the business the assessee is carrying on and therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court [2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT] reversing the judgment of this Court in M/s ICDS Limited equally applies to the facts of this case and therefore, the order passed by the tribunal disallowing the depreciation claimed is liable to be set-aside.
Disallowance of lease equalization reserve - HELD THAT:- The previous year involved in the case is 31.3.1998 and the assessment year is from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999. In order to over come such claim, by Finance Act No.2/2009 which came into effect from 1.4.1998 clause (g) was substituted to explanation to Section 115JA of the Act. This Court had an occasion to consider the said question in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs WEIZMANN HOMES LTD. [2013 (5) TMI 123 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein as held said amount has not been included in the book profit. It was unascertained liability. Even this amount is earmarked as provision for diminution in the value of any asset for the purpose of arriving at the book profit for the purpose of Section 115JA which ought to have been included. The Assessing Authority was justified in adding the said amount to the book profit. Both the Appellate Authorities committed a serious error in deleting the said amount. It is contrary to the statutory provision. That portion of the order of Tribunal requires to be set aside and accordingly it is hereby set aside and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1027
Applicability of section 14A for making disallowance out of income which eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - no nexus between the interest /dividend income earned from the Cooperative Societies and the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee on borrowed funds on the ground that there is no proof of the investment of such interest bearing funds to earn the said income without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to substantiate the above in full measure with proper evidences? HELD THAT:- In view of decision decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd vs. Union of India [1985 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal allowing the deduction to the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the amount of interest and dividend earned on the investment / deposits with the other cooperative societies. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, in all these appeals with respect to grant of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is held against the revenue
Admission of additional evidence - appeal of the revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) being bad in law, being passed against the natural justice, where new claim was accepted by him and against Rule 46 A and without even confronting it to the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the impugned order has specifically observed and has given specific findings that all the details, which came to be considered by the learned CIT(A) were as such before the learned AO, on which, learned AO concluded otherwise. The learned Tribunal also observed that balance sheet and P & I Account were available in all the years that the AO gave the figures on which the learned CIT(A) relied upon. The learned Tribunal has specifically observed that thus there is no additional evidence submitted by the appellant before the learned CIT(A) in A.Y. 2006-07. Under the circumstances and in view of the aforesaid factual findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, we dismiss present appeal on the said ground also.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1025
Exemption u/s 11 denied - cancellation of the registration u/s. 12AA (3) - AO brought to tax the income of the assessee as AOP denying the benefit - whether activities of the society are in the nature of ‘general public utility’ generating profit ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2013 (3) TMI 823 - ITAT CHENNAI] we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for exemption under sections 11 & 12 of the Act and accordingly, allow the appeal of the assessee and further hold that the reference made by the Ld.AO to the Ld.DIT (E) recommending cancellation of the registration U/s. 12AA (3) of the Act to be erroneous.
It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal has been persistently holding that the assessee society functions under the concept of Mutuality and the activities embedded in the Memorandum of Association of the society are charitable. Further the decisions of the case relied upon by the Revenue is not applicable to the facts of the relevant case before us. Therefore we hereby direct the Revenue to delete the tax imposed on the assessee by withdrawing the benefit U/s. 11 & 12 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1024
Income from house property - Claim of deduction of maintenance charges paid to society / builder in respect of the following flats let out by the appellant - HELD THAT:- Only the change in clause (b) is that, instead of the word “properties let and annual rent received or receivable”, the same has been substituted with “property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable”. Thus, there is no material change except for annual rent received or receivable has been replaced by actual rent received or receivable and, therefore, on this basis, to conclude that the earlier decisions will not be applicable is not correct.
The Hon’ble High Court in CIT v/s R.J. Wood Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 889 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that maintenance charges and other charges paid by the assessee is deductible from the rent while computing annual letting value. As per the lease agreement, which has been placed in paper book, it is seen that the assessee was liable to pay the municipal charges out of the rent received from the licensee. If the licensee had to make such payment, then the actual rent received would have been less. The deduction under section 24, is to be calculated on the basis of income which is earned and chargeable to tax under section 22 and 23.
If the gross rent also includes society charges, which is to be paid by the assessee, then while computing the annual value, the amount of rent which is actually received in the hands of the owner in respect of the lease property should be taken into consideration while giving the deduction under section 24. Thus, the actual rent received as envisaged in section 23, should be construed as net rental income received after deducting mandatory society charges. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1021
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - non adjudication of specific ground related addition towards unaccounted capitation fees for the nursing course - HELD THAT:- We agree with the Revenue that the above ground is not adjudicated by the Tribunal in the said common order. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is partially recalled only in respect of assessment year 2008-09 in [2012 (11) TMI 537 - ITAT CHENNAI] to decide the single ground relating to capitation fees for the nursing course.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1020
Claim of pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) - entire project is not completed before the stipulated date - non-completion of the few buildings - Held that:- We find the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) for A.Yrs. 2004-05 to 2007-08 by relying on various decisions. However, for the A.Y. 2008-09 the Ld.CIT(A) denied the claim of benefit of deduction u/s.80IB(10) by relying on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sainath Estate Pvt. Ltd.[2013 (9) TMI 528 - ITAT HYDERABAD], Everest Home Construction India Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 585 - ITAT MUMBAI] and the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Brahma Associates [2011 (2) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Siddhivinayak Shree [2013 (7) TMI 1123 - ITAT PUNE] after considering the decision in the case of Sainath Estate Pvt. Ltd.(Supra), the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Everest Home Construction India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has allowed the claim of proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
We are of the considered opinion that the assessee is eligible for pro-rata claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) with respect to the eligible units of the housing project. We, therefore, uphold the order of Ld.CIT(A) for A.Yrs. 2003-04 to 2007-08. The order of Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y. 2008-09 is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow proportionate deduction for the eligible units.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1019
Levy of penalty u/s 271AAB - undisclosed income surrendered during the search - non specifying the manner in which such undisclosed income has been derived and substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived - Held that:- Penalty is in respect of surrendered amount which was made during the search when the statement of the father of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was later on rectified by the assessee in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, subsequently, in post search investigations. On identical facts and circumstances of the case this Bench has also rendered similar decisions.
Under identical facts and circumstances we have taken similar view in many cases including the recent case of DCIT Vs. Shri Babulal Motavat [2014 (5) TMI 1179 - ITAT JODHPUR] there is no prescribed method to indicate the manner in which income was generated when the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in the Act itself when no income of the specified previous year represented “either wholly or partly’ which onus lay upon the assessee stood discharged. Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271AAA could not be imposed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1017
Capital gain - anticipated profit to tax - assessment in which year - land held by the assessee as stock in trade - Held that:- The conceptual foundation for this stock valuation principle are accounting principle of conservatism and business considerations of prudence, which have been noticed and approved by Hon'ble Courts above. It is for these reason that when market price of an item in the closing stock is less than its cost price to the business, the notional loss is allowed as a deduction but when market price of an item in the closing stock is more than its cost price to the business, the notional profit is not brought to tax. However, by giving the impugned directions, learned CIT(A) has ended up bringing that anticipated profit to tax.
What the assessee has got today is only a right to sell the 1,28,940.26 fts of constructed area in the Alexandria project and the profits, howsoever certain they may appear to be, will only fructify and be realized, and can even be quantified, only when this right is exercised in part or in full. That stage has not yet come, and until that stage comes, in our considered view, such profit cannot be taxed. Unlike in a case of a capital gain which arises on parting the capital asset at the first stage itself, it is a case of business transaction which is completed when the rights so acquired by the assessee are exercised; none can make profits by dealing with himself, as is the settled legal position in the light of the settled legal position in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT[1953 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]. It is for this reason that we are unable to uphold the action of the authorities below on the facts of this case.
The authorities below indeed erred in bringing to tax the anticipated business profits on assessee's entering into a development agreement with Menorah Realties Pvt Ltd in respect of the land held by the assessee as stock in trade - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1016
Block assessment for undisclosed income u/s 158BD - mandatory requirement before initiating proceedings u/s. 158BD - Held that:- Referring to case of Manish Maheshwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] satisfaction recorded by the assessment officer that any undisclosed income belonging to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 is available. This recording of satisfaction is a mandatory requirement.
From the observations and law laid down in the case of Manish Maheshwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it is clear that recording of reason is a mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 158BD. That being so, we see no error in the order passed by the Tribunal that recording of reasons is mandatory provision.
As far as alternate submission to the effect that in the present case communications available do show that reason we are not impressed from the aforesaid contention. They are only communication of certain fact with regard to issue in question but there is no specific recording of reason for re-opening of the block under Section 158 BD. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (6) TMI 1015
Addition u/s 43B - deduction for deposit of electricity duty as per the directions of the Hon'ble Odisha High Court - Held that:- The word used u/s 43B are same as "actually paid". By depositing the amount in a designated account, it cannot be said that amount has actually been paid by the Assessee to the State Government. Whenever payment is made in respect of a liability, the receiver of the amount must be the person who has received the amount. The plain meaning of the expression “actually paid” means that the same should have actually been paid to the coffer of the State Government.
Depositing the amount with the third party, in our opinion, will not tantamount to actual payment made to the State Government. The Assessee may not have no lien on the account in which the amount has been deposited but that does not mean that the amount has actually been paid to the State Government. The amount is kept into “no-lien” account just to ensure the payment of the liability in the event of State Government succeeding in the pending litigation. This cannot be regarded to be the sum actually paid to the State Government for the electricity tariff. The Assessee has disputed the liability and went before the Hon'ble High Court. On the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the amount has been deposited by the Assessee in the designated “no-lien” account with the banker. This, by no stretch of imagination can be regarded to be the discharge of the liability by the Assessee. Actual payment of the amount means that the liability is actually discharged by the Assessee. - Decided against assessee.
Claim of deduction in respect of foreign traveling expenditure of the Directors - allowable busniss expenditure - Held that:- AO has disallowed 20% of the expenditure as the Assessee did not file before the AO the tour itinerary of the Directors, details of item-wise expenses incurred by each of the Directors on travel, stay and entertainment etc. Not only this, even though the Assessee has gone before the CIT(A) in respect of the said ground of appeal, but before the CIT(A) the Assessee did not press the said ground of appeal. Before us, even though the Assessee has taken the ground but did not place any cogent material or evidence for non-filing of which the AO had made the disallowance. The contention of the Assessee cannot be accepted that the AO has not asked for the evidences. If the Assessee had necessary evidences, he could have produced the same before the CIT(A) or before us. Under these circumstances, we dismiss the ground taken by the Assessee and confirm the order of AO. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1013
Retrospectivity of amendment brought in section 40(a)(ia) - no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) required to be made as held by CIT(A) - belated deposit of TDS - Held that:- The Tribunal has followed its own judgment, by which, identical issue has been decided against the Revenue when the assessee, though deducted TDS before 31st March, 2005, relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, relating to expenditure claimed for the assessment year under consideration and paid the said amount to the Central Government before the due date of filing the return of income for A.Y. 2005-06, that expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. If it is so, the CIT(A) is justified in allowing claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. Hence, this appeal is also dismissed.
-
2014 (6) TMI 1009
TPA - Comparable selection criteria - Held that:- Assessee provides software development services to its clients in various countries including its associated enterprises (AE) overseas, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Deduction u/s 10A - reducing communication and freight expenses from the export turnover only while computing deduction - Held that:- As relying on case of CIT Vs. Gemplus Jewellery [2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and ITO Vs Saksoft Ltd [2009 (3) TMI 243 - ITAT MADRAS-D] we direct the AO to exclude the communication expenses from export turnover as well as total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A
........
|
