|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 678 Records
-
2016 (2) TMI 944 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 69C - Held that:- Since the appellant company along with the other companies are all ‘in-house’ to the Thapar- Dhingra group and there is a widespread web of inter se transactions amongst them, keeping their separate juridical identity in mind, the ends of justice will be met if in each case, addition of the peak of financial transaction, as worked out from the relevant cash book of each entity, is made. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer needs to be revisited. It may be mentioned that while the rejection of the books and the book results by the Assessing Officer is confirmed, reliance is being placed on the transactions traversing the cash book, irrespective of their notations, since amongst the inflow and outflow of cash, tax payments made by the appellant are independent and verifiable. Consequently, no separate addition is required to be made on account of purchases or expenditure. The Assessing Officer is directed to work out the peak from the entries in the cash book, including bank transactions, of the appellant for the relevant year and make a singular addition of the said amount, as unexplained investment/expenditure - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (2) TMI 938 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Addition made on the basis of the confessional statement/surrender made before the authorities during the survey - Held that:- Once the assessee was unable to offer any plausible explanation for the sum surrendered during survey merely by relying on the retraction made on a later date, it does not absolve the assessee from its liability. Further, the CIT(A) while upholding the order of the Assessing Officer had recorded a finding that the surrender was made by the assessee based on the material alleged to be in the possession of the Assessing Officer collected during the course of the survey and the said surrender was made voluntarily. Even the bills, cash and supporting documents were found with the assessee which established that the assessee was in possession of assets over and above the assets declared in the books of account against which the surrender in question was made. Furthermore, the retraction is made after more than three months for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the assessee. Retraction to be effective has to be made at the earliest opportunity when the pressure or coercion or undue influence on the person making confession ceases to be operative. Whenever there is delay in retracting from the concessional statement, the onus lies upon the person retracting to show the circumstances that existed for him not to retract earlier.
Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concurrently adjudicated the issues against the assessee on appreciation of material on record. No illegality or perversity could be demonstrated in the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below warranting interference by this Court.
-
2016 (2) TMI 936 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Territorial jurisdiction of court - writ of mandamuss directing the respondent not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner company which is under the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) as per the provisions of SICA invoking the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 - whether this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed as against the respondent? - Held that:- The respondent at Chennai has not participated in any of the action of the petitioner. Though the petitioner had deducted TDS, the same has been remitted only to the Income Tax Office at New Delhi. When the respondent has no role to play in the acts of the respondent at Chennai, there is no cause of action arise for filing the writ petition at Chennai. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly submitted that it cannot be said that Delhi High Court shall not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Since there is no cause of action, either wholly or in part, occurred at Chennai, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
-
2016 (2) TMI 935 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition under section 69C - Held that:- Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to conclusively establish the fact that purchases are bogus. Merely relying upon the information from the Sales Tax Department or the fact that parties were not produced the Assessing Officer could not have treated the purchases as bogus and made addition. If the Assessing Officer had any doubt with regard to purchases made, it was incumbent upon him to make further investigation to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions. Without making any enquiry or investigation the Assessing Officer cannot sit back and make the addition by simply relying upon the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department and issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer has failed to make any enquiry or investigation to prove the fact that the purchase transactions are not genuine whereas the assessee has brought documentary evidences on record to prove genuineness of such transactions which are not found to be fabricated or non-genuine, the action of the Assessing Officer in ignoring them cannot be accepted.
Moreover, as rightly observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), when the payment to the concerned parties are through proper banking channel and there is no evidence before the Assessing Officer that the payments made were again routed back to the assessee, the addition made under section 69C cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 934 - ITAT KOLKATA
Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) - non recording of satisfaction in the order of assessment - Held that:- The show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (2) TMI 932 - ITAT PUNE
Transfer pricing adjustment - selection of comparables - Held that:- (i) KALS Information Systems Ltd., (ii) eZest Solutions Ltd. and (iii) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. were engaged in ITES services and hence, the same being functionally dissimilar, should be excluded from the final set of comparables.
Genesys International Corporation Ltd as not functionally similar to the assessee, the said concern is to be excluded from the final list of comparables and accordingly, we direct so.
Goldstone Technologies Ltd. was engaged in the activities related to Media & IP TV and further, the company had carried inventory of set top boxes and movie rights in its Balance Sheet for the previous year. In addition, the said company had some income from sale of industrial material. Looking at the services provided by the said concern, it is clear that the same are functionally dissimilar to the services provided by the assessee and there is no merit in comparing the results of the said concern while benchmarking the international transaction of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude Goldstone Technologies Ltd.
Working capital adjustment - Held that:- We direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the working capital adjustment in the hands of assessee in line with the directions given by the Tribunal in assessment year 2007-08 wherein have given directions for allowing working capital adjustment as per OECD guidelines.
-
2016 (2) TMI 931 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Transfer pricing adjustment - comparable selection - Held that:- In view of the matter, following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pegasystems Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad [2015 (10) TMI 2495 - ITAT HYDERABAD] we accept the contentions of the assessee in its appeal and direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to redetermine the transfer pricing adjustment, if any, warranted, after excluding the above three comparables [ E-Infochips Bangalore ltd., Kals information Systems ltd. and Tata Elxsi Ltd.(Seg)] from the TP study.
-
2016 (2) TMI 928 - ITAT CHENNAI
Addition u/s 14A - sufficiency of funds - Held that:- When the assessee has sufficient share capital, reserves and surplus, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any disallowance towards the interest paid on the borrowed funds under Section 14A of the Act. For the purpose of disallowing interest income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, there should be nexus between the borrowed funds and investment made by the assessee in the share capital and mutual funds. In the absence of any nexus, the presumption is that the assessee has invested the available interest-free funds in share capital and mutual funds. Furthermore, making investment in sister concerns is for commercial expediency in view of the judgment of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT ) . It is not the case of the Revenue that the sister concern or any of the Directors has misused the funds invested by the assessee. When the sister concern uses the funds only for business purpose, there was commercial expediency for making investment. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (2) TMI 927 - ITAT KOLKATA
Penalty u/s. 271D and 271E - advance receipt on sale of goods from dealers as deposit - Held that:- As find from the facts that the assessee has merely collected advances in cash from various dealers for supply of rice and wheat during the course of business. Hence, it can safely be concluded that the said receipts pertained the character of revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee. It is not in dispute that the said advances were duly adjusted by supply of goods by the assessee before the end of previous year. In these circumstances, we hold that the advance receipt on sale of goods from dealers as deposit and invoking the provisions of section 269SS and 269T is not warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (2) TMI 924 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Excusion of Exchange Rate Fluctuation from the total turnover for the purpose of the deduction u/s. 80HHC.
Transfer pricing adjustment - Held that:- The assessee has paid commission to its AE and we find that the basis for the payment of commission has also been given to justify it to be at arm’s length. The TPO/A.O has nowhere denied that the weighted average rate of commission paid by the assessee is 7.84% as against 11% paid to unrelated party. We also find that in his appellate order, the First Appellate Authority has observed the rate of commission ranging from 0.38% to 33.33%, the assessee’s rate is at 3%. We also find that none of the revenue authorities below have brought any comparable case on record to show that the payment of commission by the assessee is not at arm’s length. On the contrary, we find that the A.O. has disallowed merely because he was of the opinion that no services have been rendered. This finding is beyond the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Act in as much as under chapter 10, the TPO/A.O. has to see whether the international transaction entered by the assessee is at arm’s length or not. There are other provisions in the act wherein the A.O. can test the genuineness of the transaction but in any case not under Chapter 10 of the Act. As mentioned elsewhere, no comparable case have been brought on record which could justify that the payment of 3% + 1% overriding commission is not at arm’s length, we set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the entire transfer pricing adjustment made by it
Disallowance of investment written off in MJPL for computing profits u/s. 115JB - Held that:- . There is no doubt that the assessee has written off the investments made in MJPL. Thus, it can be said with certainty that no provision has been made and it is a case of write off only. Therefore in our considered opinion, the amended provisions do not apply on the facts of the case. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O to delete while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act.
Inter unit transactions cannot be considered as sales to form part of the total turnover for the computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act
Disallowance of expenses incurred on behalf of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries taking recourse to the provisions of section 40(b) - Held that:- In our understanding of the law an expenditure is allowable if it is incurred for the purposes of the business of the assessee and not for the purposes of earning profit. As per the agreement between the assessee company and the partnership firm, the assessee had assisted the partnership firm in carrying on its business by using its network for marketing the pharmaceuticals products successively.
Thus, it cannot be said that the expenditure incurred by the assessee are not for the purposes of its business. Since the assessee is holding 95% in the partnership firm it becomes the duty of the assessee to promote the business of the partnership firm, in the capacity of the majority stake holder. Incidentally, the revenue authorities have not brought anything on record which could suggest that the expenditures have not been incurred for the purposes of business. Be it assessee’s business or the business of the partnership firm where the assessee is a majority stake holder. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the expenditures incurred by the assessee company deserves to be allowed and we direct the A.O to delete the addition
-
2016 (2) TMI 923 - ITAT MUMBAI
Taxability of advertisement revenue - Held that:- So far as the issue relating to addition on account of "advertisement revenue" and "distribution revenue" the same stands decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, which has been affirmed by the Hon‟ble High Court in AY 1999-2000 and also in subsequent years. As regards the issue of "distribution receipts" treated as "royalty income", we find that this has been treated as business income and such a finding or conclusion now have attained finality, as pointed out by the Ld. Senior Counsel.
Taxability on distribution revenue - Held that:- Since this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by holding that the same is not taxable on the ground that it has been paid at Arm‟s length price, therefore, this ground becomes purely academic
Taxability on distribution revenue and taxability of interest received u/s.244A - Held that:- As regards the issue relating to taxability of interest received u/s 244A, it is admitted that, so far as taxability of interest u/s 244 is concerned, under Article 11(4) of India Singapore Treaty, the same is now covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs Clough Engineering Ltd, reported in [2011 (5) TMI 562 - ITAT, DELHI ].
-
2016 (2) TMI 922 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification of apparent mistake in the order of Tribunal - claim of depreciation on management rights denied - Held that:- We have considered rival contentions and gone through the order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has restored assessee’s ground for claim of depreciation on management rights for deciding as per the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the preceding year. However, there is no order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, therefore, it amounts to mistake apparent from record. The Tribunal in its order has quoted various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal, wherein depreciation was allowed in case of intangible assets. Accordingly, we rectify the order dated 10-7-2015 to the extent of observation made in para 10 of the order and direct the AO to allow assessee’s claim of depreciation following the decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Tribunal. Before parting with the matter, it is pertinent to mention that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd.[2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT ] held that intangible assets in the form of goodwill is eligible for claim of depreciation. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 921 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- As the original returns were accepted u/s 143(1) of the act there cannot be any change of opinion and therefore reopening is valid. Reopening is not challenged before us on any other ground. Hence we dismiss the CO of the assessee accordingly.
Royalty us./ 9 (1) (vi) - Receipt of the assessee is rental of vessels received from non-production sharing companies (i.e. Second Leg contracts) - non applicability of provisions of section 44BB - Held that:- In view of the decision of SBS Marine Limited V ADIT (2015 (3) TMI 147 - ITAT DELHI ) we hold that even second leg contracts are also eligible for the benefit of tax treatment provided u/s 44BB of the Act. As we have already held that receipt of the assessee is chargeable tax pertaining to second leg contracts also u/s 44BB of the Income tax act, consequently we reject the argument of the revenue that it is "equipment royalty" chargeable u/s 9(1) (vi) of the and consequently liable to tax @ 25 % on gross basis u/s 115A of the Income tax Act.
Interest u/s 234B & 234C is not chargeable
-
2016 (2) TMI 920 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- The assessee furnished breakup of investment and copy of fresh computation. We also find that the copies of breakup furnished during the course of the assessment proceedings are exhibited at Page Nos. 70 & 71 of the paper book. The details of payment of brokerage commission and interest are exhibited at Page Nos. 72 & 73 of the paper book. The computation of short term capital gain is exhibited at Page No. 75 of the paper book and all these documents were filed during the course of the assessment proceedings which have been examined by the A.O before completing the assessment.
A perusal of the documentary evidences qua the observations of the Commissioner show that there is no failure on the part of the A.O to examine the impugned transactions and, therefore, in our considered opinion, there is no error in the assessment order which can be said to be pre-judicial to the interest of revenue.
The AO has taken a view which may be different from the view of the Ld. Commissioner and assuming that the view taken by the AO is a loss to the Revenue but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court ) has held that " every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue," for e.g. when an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Ld. Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an order which is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (2) TMI 919 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- We find force in the submissions of the assessee that only those investments which would yield dividend and which is exempt should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). We also hold that the disallowance under section 14A should not exceed the dividend income earned by the assessee. We direct the AO to recompute the disallowance taking only those investments which yield dividend income and apply Rule 8D(2)(iii) and such disallowance should not exceed the dividend income earned by the assessee.
Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose.
-
2016 (2) TMI 918 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Monetary limit for filing appeal - Held that:- Since the tax effect involved is ₹ 16,66,247/- he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi.
-
2016 (2) TMI 917 - ITAT MUMBAI
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - Held that:- As the CBDT has revised the monetary limits to file appeal vide its Instruction No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, the new monetary limit to file an appeal to ITAT is ₹ 10 Lakhs.
In the aforementioned case, the tax effect is below the prescribed limit. Hence, it is requested to withdraw the appeal on the basis of tax limit, however, the order of CIT(A) is not accepted on merit. In view of the circular of the board mentioned in the above application, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue, being not maintainable.
-
2016 (2) TMI 916 - ITAT DELHI
Foreign exchange loss/gain treated as non-operating selection of comparables - Held that:- Perusal of the functions of the assessee as mandated by the agreement on 1st day of October, 2006 demonstrates that the assessee is not a normal service provider nor a ITES company. The assessee requires skill, capability as well as expertise in a particular filed of procurement and manufacturing for performing the functions referred above. The assessee is required to perform functions including, quality control services, providing technical services with respect to the products and aid the manufacturers of the products, provide guidance to the manufacturers with respect to acquisition of raw material, randomly inspect relevant factory conditions etc. In other words the assessee is offering a comprehensive range of procurement related advisory services including quality control etc. Thus Apitco Ltd, Global Procurement Consultants Ltd., Quippo Valuers and Auctioneers Private Limited and TSR Darashaw Ltd are directed to be excluded as a comparable.
Treating foreign exchange loss/gain as non-operative - Held that:- On observing the functional profile of the assessee, we are inclined to agree with the contentions of the assessee that the foreign exchange loss/profit is an operating loss, if the transaction on which it arose is connected with the core business/services being rendered by the assessee. This aspect needs examination. Thus we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law.
-
2016 (2) TMI 915 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bad debts deduction u/s 36(2) disallowed by AO on the ground that the claim has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee - Held that:- Even if, it is presumed that a wrong claim was made, still, it cannot be concluded that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed its income. The decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ), holding that mere making a wrong claim itself does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing of income, clearly comes to the rescue of the assessee. Respectfully, following the same, the penalty of ₹ 17,496/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is directed to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (2) TMI 914 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 69C addition - AO had made the addition as one of the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case as agreed that it was a good starting point for making further investigation and take it to logical end. But, he left the job at initial point itself. Suspicion of highest degree cannot take place of evidence. He could have called for the details of the bank accounts of the suppliers to find out as whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their account. We find that no such exercise was done. Transportation of good to the site is one of the deciding factor to be considered for resolving the issue. The FAA has given a finding of fact that part of the goods received by the assessee was forming part of closing stock. There is nothing, in the order of the AO, about the cash traial. Secondly, proof of movement of goods is not in doubt. Therefore additions fairly deleted - Decided in favour of assessee
............
|
