|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 734 Records
-
2019 (9) TMI 1549 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS — NCR BENCH (INCOME-TAX)]
Advance ruling application - Income taxable in India - capital gains on the proposed sale of shares - transfer of shares from a holding company - India-Mauritius Tax Treaty - Applicability of provisions of section 90 - HELD THAT:- Ruling the issues of advancing loan to the holding company with interest at 1 per cent. and waiver of earlier loan while advancing fresh loan, have no relevance while deciding the question before us. Even if the entire sale consideration goes back to the parent holding company it will not dilute the separate legal identity of the applicant. The matter regarding variance in the date of transfer of shares as per contribution agreement and the financial statements has been clarified by the applicant.
Suitable clarification has also been provided in respect of the loan given by the applicant not found reflected in form 10-K accounts of the holding company. The other issues raised by the Revenue are also not found relevant for deciding the question before us. Accordingly, the information regarding manner of utilization of sale proceeds, copy of valuation report of shares of BD Singapore, copy of loan agreement between applicant and BS USA and the source of the loan etc., all become inconsequential and no adverse inference can be drawn if the details of the same are not provided by the applicant.
We find that the investment was made out of the funds emanating from the applicant, the investment was held for a period of over 15 years during which the business operations in India was carried on and which continued even after the exit, there was continuous generation of taxable revenue in India and thus the applicant fulfils the conditions as laid out above. In fact the hon'ble Supreme Court had observed in that case that the funds coming from Mauritius were not originating from that country but from third nations, still the structure as set up cannot be considered to be a set up for tax evasion. The apex court further held that the Revenue cannot deny the benefits of transfer of shares by alleging that the Mauritius company was merely a conduit and the US company was the actual beneficial owner of the shares.
We do not have any adverse finding and we are inclined to accept the plea of the applicant that it was not a benami or set up for tax avoidance as a colourable device and only for treaty shopping, which in any case is not taboo. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a tax resident of Mauritius, possesses a valid tax residency certificate granted by the Mauritius tax authorities and would be covered under the India-Mauritius DTAC
The tax treaty between India and Mauritius was originally signed in 1983 which provided a capital gains tax exemption to a Mauritius resident on transfer of Indian securities. The availability of capital gains tax exemption under the Indo-Mauritius Treaty was challenged in courts which had resulted in the Government issuing Circular No. 789 assuring investors the benefits of capital gains exemption under the treaty and which was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Azadi Bachao Andolan case [2003 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]
As per article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAC that the capital gains derived by the resident of a Contracting State from the alienation of any property other than those mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the article shall be taxable only in that State. The shares and securities are not specified in clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the article 13. Therefore, any gain arising on sale of shares is liable to tax only in the State in which the person alienating the shares is resident. In the instant case the applicant is resident of Mauritius and accordingly the capital gain arising on transfer of shares of BD India is liable to tax in Mauritius only. We, therefore, uphold the contention of the applicant that by virtue of article 13.4 of India-Mauritius DTAA, capital gain tax is not liable to be charged in India.
The applicant is not liable to pay capital gains tax in India in respect of the transfer of shares held in BD India to BD Singapore having regard to the provisions of India-Mauritius DTAA.
Question 1 as answered - The capital gains on the sale of shares of Becton Dickinson India Private Limited by the applicant to Becton Dickinson Holdings Pte. Ltd. would not be chargeable to Income-tax in India in the hands of the applicant, having regard to the provisions of article 13 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1546 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Revision u/s 263 - claim of deduction u/s 10A of the Act before setting off brought forward losses - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in INDUSA INFOTECH SERVICES (P.) LTD. [2013 (9) TMI 1150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that the deduction u/s 10A has to be allowed before set off of unabsorbed loss and depreciation of non-eligible business unit of assessee.
We find no justification in such order passed by the Learned PCIT who has not taken into consideration this particular aspect of the matter though the same was brought to his notice by the assessee by and under reply dated 21.03.2016 hence relying upon the ratio laid down above, we find no justification in the order impugned before us which has re-opened the issue u/s 263 of the Act whereas, we find that the order passed by the Learned AO is just and proper and in terms of the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court. There is nothing erroneous found in the order of the Learned AO, neither it is prejudicial to the instant of the Revenue. None of the conditions is being fulfilled by the order passed by the Learned PCIT in order to invoke the provision of section 263 of the Act in order to reopen the assessment of the appellant company. Hence, the order impugned is being devoid of any merit and thus quashed. Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1545 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation u/s 32 on Concession Rights Toll by treating the same as intangible assets - whether the CIT(A) is right in concluding that the assesses claim for depreciation on “license to collect toll”, being an intangible asset, falling within the scope of Sec. 32(1)(ii)? - HELD THAT:- We find that in case of Progressive Construction Ltd.[2017 (3) TMI 1167 - ITAT HYDERABAD] had concluded, that where an Infrastructure Development company which had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government, gets vested with a right to an intangible asset under Explanation 3(b) r.w. Sec.32(1)(ii), the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on such asset as per the specified rate. Apart there from, it was observed by the Tribunal, that where the assessee had never claimed expenditure incurred for construction of the road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis, as a deferred revenue expenditure, the same could not have been amortized in terms of CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2014, dated, 23.04.2014.
Thus the issue as to whether an Infrastructure Development company which had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government would be eligible for claim of depreciation in respect of its intangible rights i.e “right to collect toll” under Sec. 32(1)(ii), is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the “Special bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 10(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1167 - ITAT HYDERABAD] and also the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal viz. (i) DCIT, Circle-9(1)(2),Mumbai Vs. M/s Atlanta Ltd. Mumbai [2018 (2) TMI 1514 - ITAT MUMBAI] and (ii) ACIT Vs. M/s PNG Tata Ltd. [2019 (8) TMI 347 - ITAT CHENNAI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1541 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s.35AC on account of donation given by the appellant - During the course of search, one of the trustees accepted that all the expenses were bogus and the donations received in cheques were returned in cash to all the donors after deducting nominal commission - HELD THAT:- After the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the payment of donation to Navjeevan Charitable Trust, the onus shifted to the AO. However, the AO failed to conduct any inquiry before making disallowance of the above claim of the assessee. The AO has not brought on record that donation given by the assessee was subsequently returned back in cash, except a mere bald statement in the assessment order ‘that survey action conducted on some of the donors have conclusively proved that the Trust indeed returned the donation in cash’. The AO has not found any fault in the documents filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.
In CIT v. A And A Bakery P. Ltd.[2007 (3) TMI 235 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it is held that “it is for the taxpayer tp prove the expenditure claimed by him, But the burden will shift, where the assessee had produced prima facie evidence as payment by cheque, so that no further proof may be expected. Disallowance prompted by mere suspicion in such cases was held unjustified.
We delete the disallowance made by the AO. Facts being identical, our decision for the AY 2009-10 applies mutatis mutandis to AYs 2012-13 & 2014-15. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1534 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - ITO jurisdiction to issue notice - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that reasons for reopening of the assessment have been recorded in this case by ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida, who was having no jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. When assessee filed letter before ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida on 07.09.2017 stating therein that return filed originally may be treated as return having filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and is also supported by copy of acknowledgment of return filed originally, the ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida transferred this case to ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad, vide letter dated 07.09.2017 (PB 10). The AO while completing the assessment in this case has taken the shelter of provisions of section 129 of the Act. However, the said provision is not applicable because it is a matter of assumption of valid jurisdiction in the matter or to validly initiate the reassessment proceedings against the assessee.
It is not a case of succession to exercise jurisdiction by one ITO to another ITO. Since, reasons have been recorded for reopening of the assessment by ITO, Noida who was not authorized to do so, therefore, mere recording of reasons for reopening of the assessment by him is of no consequence and has no value under the law. The AO who has jurisdiction over the case of assessee i.e. ITO, Faridabad admittedly did not record any reasons for reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT Agra Bench in the case of S N Bhargawa [2013 (10) TMI 512 - ITAT AGRA]
Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the Act is illegal and bad in law and, as such, liable to be quashed. Accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. Resultantly the entire addition stands deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1514 - ITAT JAIPUR
Ad hoc trading addition - Non invoking provisions of Section 145(3) - AO has given reasons for making ad hoc disallowance that too as a lump sum trading addition as the freight expenses were not fully supported by proper bills and vouchers - HELD THAT:-Though the term used by the A.O. in the assessment order being the trading addition is not justified when there is no rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act. However, in substance, the A.O. has made this addition on account of claim of expenses not verifiable. The A.O. has not given the finding that the claim of expenditure is either excessive or bogus having regard to the facts of turnover during the year under consideration and nature of business of the assessee. There is no dispute that in the business of the assessee, the freight expenses are inevitable and therefore, if the claim is not found to be excessive or bogus then merely because of the some of the expenses are not supported by proper vouchers, no ad hoc disallowance is called for.
If certain claim of expenditure is not found to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose of the assessee then the same is liable to be disallowed. However, if the expenditure incurred by the assessee is found for the business purpose of the assessee then due to certain irregularity in maintaining the supporting evidence an ad hoc disallowance is not called for. Accordingly, without specifying the instance of the expenditure, which is either excessive or found not incurred for the business of the assessee, the action of the A.O. in making ad hoc disallowance and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified. Hence, ad hoc disallowance is deleted. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed
-
2019 (9) TMI 1513 - ITAT CHENNAI
Bogus LTCG - Exemption u/s.10(38) denied - HELD THAT:- As noticed that the assessee has not been given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness but the assessment has been made primarily based on the evidences collected by the Revenue in the course of the investigation conducted by them on the brokers / share broking entities etc. This is not permissible. This being so, in the interests of natural justice, the issue of the genuineness of the transactions require re-adjudication. Since, the right to exemption must be established by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion.
AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence.
AO shall require the assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned transactions were carried out etc., to prove that the impugned transactions are actual, genuine etc. The assessee shall comply with the AO’s requirements as per law. The AO is also free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit. The Assessing Officer shall also bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and relationship of the assessee with other promoters, role of the assessee in inflating the price of shares, etc. as had been held in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons (HUF) [2019 (2) TMI 1640 - ITAT CHENNAI]. The AO shall furnish adequate opportunity to the assessee on the material etc to be used against it and on appreciation of all the aspects, the AO would decide the matter in accordance with law. - Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1511 - ITAT PUNE
Addition on account of suppressed production on the basis of electricity consumption - CIT (A)-I directing that no addition can be made merely on basis of electricity consumption formula - HELD THAT:- We find there is no dispute on the fact that the Assessing Officer made addition based on the estimation with reference to the consumption of electricity. This is a case where the DGCEI scrutinized the accounts of the assessee. We further find on similar facts in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Steel Alloys Pvt. .[2015 (7) TMI 1264 - ITAT PUNE]the relief was granted by the Tribunal to the assessee. Aggrieved with the said relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue filed the present appeal informing that the Revenue already filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court for the earlier assessment years and, therefore, this is the intention of the Revenue to file the present appeal is to keep the issue alive on this issue .
Considering the same, in our view, such reasons for filing the appeal is unsustainable.
Considering all, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable on this issue and it does not call for any interference. Thus, the relevant grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1509 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Estimation of income on bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- In the original return of income was processed u/s 143(1) and the only requirement under law to initiate reassessment proceedings was that learned AO had reasons to believe that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. AO was clinched with tangible material in the shape of information from investigation wing / Sales Tax Department which, prima facie, suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more was required at this stage. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were perfectly valid. Nothing on record support the legal grounds raised by assessee before us. Therefore, these grounds stand dismissed.
Estimation of additions of bogus purchases - There could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the assessee’s nature of business. The assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the payments to the supplier was through banking channels. The sales turnover reflected by the assessee was not disputed / disturbed by Ld.AO. However, at the same time, the assessee miserably failed to substantiate the purchases during assessment proceedings.
Notices issued u/s 133(6) remained unresponded to in all the cases. Under such circumstances, the additions which could be sustained, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases, which Ld. first appellate authority has rightly done.
Assessee was dealing in a low-margin item like iron & steel which attracts lower rate of tax, the estimation made by Ld. CIT(A) would be slightly on the higher side. We modify the same to 5% of suspicious purchases which comes to ₹ 4,64,973/-. The Ld. AO is directed to recompute the income in terms of our order. The grounds, on merits, stands partly allowed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1508 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of rebate and discount - HELD THAT:- As the amount of rebate and discount in respect of domestic sales is varying between 0.4% and 0.67%. It is, therefore, clear that the rebate and discount for the Asstt. Year 2012-13 by 0.30% is fitting in the order of things and there is nothing abnormal. Having regard to this factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that there is no justification for the disallowance and the same is liable to be deleted. We direct the deletion of the same.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1507 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - tax limit for filing appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- As brought to our notice that as per the CBDT Circulars No.03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 and Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 9th August, 2019, the tax limit for filing appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been fixed at ₹ 50.00 lakhs and above. Therefore, since the tax effect in the present appeal before us is less than ₹ 50.00 lakh, we hereby dismiss the same with liberty to the Revenue to seek recall of the order, if the appeal falls within the exceptions mentioned in the Circulars of the CBDT.
Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1506 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
TP Adjustment - adjustment of 10% on account of quality difference and deleting the addition made by TPO / AO by applying CUP to arrive at ALP in respect of Bisoprolol Fumerate without giving adjustment for quality as claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The application of CUP method was what was canvassed by the Revenue and accepted by the Tribunal. Thus, there could be no grievance with regard to the application of CUP method. Similarly, the adjustment on account of quality as claimed by the assessee was allowed. This adjustment was in terms of Rule 10B(1) (a)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. It is a fact of which judicial note can be taken that wherever even two products are identical, yet on account of perception there could be difference of the price in the open market. This has to be factored in while determining the ALP as has been recognized in the aforementioned rule 10B(1)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. TPO himself has accepted this price adjustment on account of perception of quality by allowing the adjustment at 10% in the Assessment Year 2010-11.In the above view, the question (a) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
Adjustments in respect of technical consultancy fees - HELD THAT:- It is an agreed position between the parties that in the respondent’s own case for Assessment Year 2003-04, a similar issue had arisen viz. package of services being available under the agreement on as and when required basis. This Court by an order in Merck Ltd. [2016 (8) TMI 561 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held the fees paid for on bouquet of services as and when required, would be similar to retainer agreement. It is agreed by the Revenue that the above order dated 8th August, 2016 of this Court in the respondent’s own case will equally apply to the present facts.
Disallowance on share buyback expenditure without appreciating that it is a capital expenditure and not allowable u/s. 37 - HELD THAT:- Following the decision of Delhi High court in CIT Vs. Selan Exploration Technology Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 989 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held that share buyback expenditure incurred by the respondent did not result in a benefit of an enduring nature as after the buyback the capital employed had gone down. Thus, the expenditure incurred has not resulted in bringing into existence any new asset, thus was not in the nature of the capital expenditure. On the aforesaid basis, the Delhi High Court held that once it is held that the expenditure is not capital in nature, then, the expenditure is allowable under Section 37 of the Act as a revenue expenditure as it was incurred for the benefit of existing shareholders in the ordinary course of business.
Disallowance in respect of sales promotion and conference expenses incurred without appreciating that these expenses does not render any benefit to the assessee company and are against ethics - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- It is for the assessee to decide whether the expenditure should be incurred in the course of his business and once it is found that it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business, then it is deductible under Section 37 of the Act. It further records that it is relevant to note that an attempt was made to introduce the word “necessity” in Section 37 of the Income Tax Bill of 1961. However, this had led to public protest and resulted in dropping the word “necessity” when the Income Tax bill of 1961 was passed into the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the view of the Tribunal on this issue cannot be faulted
Disallowance in respect of sales promotion and conference expenses incurred prior to date of amendment in the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 i.e. 10-12-2009 without adjudicating the issue - HELD THAT:- We did not think it fit to adjudicate the issue. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal records that the Revenue has not contested the issue before it. As the Revenue has not urged this issue of disallowance of expenses before the Tribunal, it cannot now be urged by the Revenue before us. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works Co. [2009 (4) TMI 182 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that if a concession is made before the Tribunal, then on that issue no substantial question of law arises.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1505 - SUPREME COURT
Addition u/s 153A - addition made by AO in the course of the scrutiny of the assessment - no fresh relating material was discovered during the search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 of the Act to justify the addition under Section 154A - AO has not made any reference whatsoever to any incriminating material found as a result of the search and the addition has been made entirely on the basis of allegation of accommodation entry - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1502 - ITAT CHENNAI
Eligibility of exemption u/s.10(21) - CIT-A categorizing the “Institution” as “Association” - HELD THAT:- The primary order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1997-98 denial of exemption by the Assessing Officer is based on the fact that the Assessee is classified as an Institution. It is the case of the Department that the Assessee-society is classified as an Institution and not as an Association and as per the provisions of sec.10(21) of the Act, exemption is available only to an Association.
But once the fact that the Assessee-society is engaged in research work regarding agriculture related activities and it is recognized as a leading National Body in the field of Research in Bio-Technology and Toxicology. Further, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has classified the Assessee-society as an Association in the year 1997, after due verification of its object as well as its activities and there is no change in the objectives of the Assessee-society from its inception till date. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the Tribunals decision cited supra, we hold that the Assessee is entitled to exemption under sec.10(21) of the Act as the Assessee-society is engaged in research work in agriculture related activities.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1501 - ITAT DELHI
Recognition of income - addition being interest on mobilization advance - assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and, therefore, the amount should have been recognized by the assessee as income for the impugned assessment year on accrual basis - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case for A.Y 2008-09 [2016 (1) TMI 1456 - ITAT DELHI] has deleted the addition held as that the entire matter is contentious in the sense that the third party - RPCL - which was awarded the contract claimed that it had performed it in accordance with the agreement with the parties. The assessee, however, felt otherwise and terminated the contract. There could be several likely outcomes in these proceedings - many of them possibility impinging upon the rights of the assessee to receive advance amount itself along with interest either in whole or in part. In these circumstances, the ITAT’s conclusions that there was no crystallized right to receive any particular amount or amounts, cannot be faulted.
Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - expenditure incurred for earning the tax free income - HELD THAT:- We find the Tribunal vide ITA [2017 (4) TMI 1528 - ITAT DELHI] 24.04.2017 while deleting the disallowance stating According to the provisions of section 14A(2), the Ld. assessing officer before invoking the applicability of Rule 8D should have explained as to why the voluntary disallowances or no disallowances made by the assessee was unreasonable and unsatisfactory. We failed to find any such satisfaction recorded by the Ld. assessing officer. The satisfaction is mandatory in view of the judicial precedents of the jurisdictional High Court laid down before us by the Ld. authorized representative. Therefore, we delete the disallowance under section 14A of the income tax act applying the provisions of Rule 8D. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1489 - ITAT JAIPUR
Trading addition - lumsum/ adhoc addition on account of labour expenses on estimation basis - Non rejection of books of accounts - HELD THAT:- ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Goodwill Impex Ltd vs DCIT [2019 (3) TMI 1456 - ITAT JAIPUR] had categorically held that where the assessee company had declared better trading results as compared to previous year and such result provides a reasonable basis to hold that there should not be any addition in the hands of the assessee company.
AO had not detected any defect in the books of the assessee and AO has not invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act for rejecting the books of account of the assessee but made the lumsum/ adhoc addition on account of labour expenses on estimation basis without finding any defects in the books of account and vouchers of the assessee. Hence once the assessee company had declared better trading results as compared to previous year, such results provide a reasonable basis to hold that there should not be any addition in the hands of the assessee company. Thus in the light of the above discussions and keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition so made by AO and restricted by ld. CIT(A) are deleted. Thus the solitary ground of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1486 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee as engaged in the business of medical transcription and is a subsidiary of Acusis Holding Co. Ltd. British Virgin Islands which is a wholly subsidiary of Acusis LLC, USA and the company registered as a private company engaged in medical transcription services to Acusis LLC and is remunerated on cost + 15% mark up need to be deselected from final list.
Working Capital Adjustment and the Foreign Exchange Gain/Loss - HELD THAT:- We found in the course of hearing, no details were filed in respect of Foreign Exchange Gain/Loss and the DRP where the assessee has failed to submit the details. As prayed by the ld. AR, we restore these disputed issues to the file of TPO with a direction to consider the claim of assessee and the assessee shall submit the details in respect of foreign exchange fluctuation. Similarly, the adjustment benefit of +/- 5% was not considered by the TPO in his order and the same has to be allowed and we order accordingly.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1485 - ITAT RAJKOT
Disallowance on account of bad debt - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Mysore Sugar Company Ltd [1962 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is held that in case the company has advanced money to sugarcane grower for purchase of sugarcane and when they were unable to purchase sugarcane, the amount was written off and claimed as trading loss and the same was allowed. We do not find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A) in allowing the claim of advances written off which were given in the ordinary course of business by the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue and cross of the assessee, therefore, the cross objection of the assessee and appeal of the revenue both are dismissed.
Disallowance of written off salary advance - HELD THAT:- AO disallowed the salary written off stating that the assessee has failed to prove that the person to whom salary given were its employees and has also not proved that the same was included in computing the income of the assessee for earlier years and for the year under consideration. The assessee has failed to substantiate with relevant material that the salary advances were given to its employees employed with it.
Disallowance on account of loss of stock by obsolescence - AO disallowed the claim of loss on account of absolescene of stock of fish stating that valuation shown by the assessee on the basis of stock or net realizing value cannot be accepted on the basis of evidence available on local sale account - HELD THAT:- As assessee has brought the unsold stock from the earlier years and no production of Surmai fish was made during the year under consideration. It is further noticed that the closing stock for the year under consideration has been accepted by the assessing officer as opening stock for the subsequent year without any variation. We observed that assessing officer has not elaborated the detailed reasons with specific finding for rejecting the claim of loss of stock by absolescence on account of unsold old stock of fish which are of perishable nature. We do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer. Therefore, we do not find any force in the appeal of the revenue and the same is dismissed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1481 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT-A held that the amount of disallowance u/s.14A could be restricted to the amount of exempt income only - HELD THAT:- Since the Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala (2018 (11) TMI 1565 - SC ORDER) we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence dismiss the revenue’s appeal.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1479 - ITAT DELHI
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as non-maintainable as the tax effect involved in the appeals is below ₹ 50 lakhs. However, it is made clear that the Department is at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for recalling of the order, if the tax effect is found to be more than the prescribed limit of ₹ 50,00,000/- or any of the conditions etc., as available in the amendment carried out in para 10 of Circular No. 3/2018, dated 20.08.2018, is made out. Appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
........
|
