|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1051 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 823
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order, Allowability of prior period expenses, Order u/s 263, Dismissal of appeal by ITAT, Modification of ITAT order, Rectification order u/s 154, Rejection of contention by Dy. Commissioner, Challenge before CIT(A), Appeal before ITAT.
Allowability of prior period expenses: The appeal was filed by the assessee company against the order of the CIT(A) V, Hyderabad, which directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income by disallowing prior period expenses claimed during the year and allowing them in the year in which they actually accrued. The ITAT upheld the order u/s 263 as the Assessing Officer failed to examine the issue in the original assessment. The ITAT later modified the order, stating that if the prior period expenses are crystallised during the year itself, they can be allowed in that year, otherwise, they have to be allowed as per the original direction of the CIT(A) u/s 263.
Rectification order u/s 154: The assessee approached the Assessing Officer under S.154 to examine the issue of prior period expenses as the amount was neither allowed in the year under consideration nor in any other year. However, the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the contention without examining the issue, citing the dismissal of the appeal by ITAT. The CIT(A) also did not find any merit in the contention, leading the assessee to file an appeal before the ITAT.
ITAT's decision and directions: The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer had not fully implemented the order of the CIT(A) u/s 263 regarding the prior period expenses. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of prior period expenses, determine the year of accrual, and allow the expenditure either in the current year or in any other year as per the directions given. The Assessing Officer was instructed to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restoring the issue for implementation.
-
2013 (1) TMI 822
Issues involved: Challenge to Order-In-Original u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for pump parts for Excavator; Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment process.
Challenge to Order-In-Original: The writ petition challenges Order-In-Original no. 2733 of 2012 dated 8th November, 2012, which rejected the declared value for pump parts for Excavator under Bill of Entry No. 549254 dated 06.07.10, redetermined the value, confiscated the goods u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed differential customs duty, redemption fine, and penalties u/s 114A & 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner alleged violation of natural justice, lack of opportunity of hearing, and failure to provide copies of relied-upon documents.
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and without providing copies of documents relied upon in the show-cause notice. The petitioner declined inspection but requested copies of the documents. The Court held that natural justice required supplying copies of non-classified documents to the assessee at their cost. Since no hearing was granted to the petitioner, the assessment order was set aside, allowing the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order after providing a hearing and furnishing copies of documents at the petitioner's cost.
Court's Decision: The Court quashed the impugned assessment order for violating natural justice principles and directed the Adjudicating Authority to conduct a fresh assessment after granting the petitioner a hearing and providing copies of necessary documents at the petitioner's expense. The Authority must disclose reasons for any documents not supplied and allow inspection if necessary. The petitioner's request for copies was found reasonable, and failure to provide them was deemed unjust. The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to natural justice principles in customs proceedings.
-
2013 (1) TMI 821
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against order of CIT(A) regarding treatment of income as Short Term Capital Gains instead of business income for AY 2005-06.
Summary:
1. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order treating income as Short Term Capital Gains instead of business income.
2. The Assessing Officer initially treated the income from sale of investments as business income, but the CIT(A) allowed the appeal based on evidence provided by the assessee.
3. The Revenue contended that the assessee was engaged in trading of shares and securities, not mere investment.
4. The CIT(A) considered the duration of holding of shares by the assessee and concluded that the income should be treated as capital gains, not business income.
5. The High Court upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the nature of transactions and holding period of shares.
6. The High Court observed that the assessee had separate portfolios for trading and investment, and the intention was for short-term investment.
7. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the treatment of income as Short Term Capital Gains.
Cross Objections:
1. The assessee raised objections regarding disallowance under section 14A of the Act on an estimated basis.
2. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, considering the judgment of the High Court and ITAT, leading to the dismissal of the objections.
3. The Assessing Officer made an addition for interest income on fixed deposits, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) based on a High Court judgment.
4. The High Court upheld the addition related to interest income, leading to the dismissal of the cross objections.
Conclusion:
1. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objections, maintaining the treatment of income as Short Term Capital Gains and confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
-
2013 (1) TMI 820
The Bombay High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 regarding depreciation in respect of the cost of assets allowed to the assessee as expenditure, citing a previous decision. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 819
Whether the purchases amounts to Bogus purchase - disallowance of interest - Held that:- assessee has furnished sufficient evidence in the form of Bank account, copy of Sales Tax return etc - comparison of the G.P. shows that the purchases were genuine - Thus the addition on account of bogus purchases is not warranted - Decided if favor of assessee
Held that:- Assessee had taken loan of ₹ 20,75,000/- in his individual capacity and not for the business - Further the loan was transferred to the partnership firm and thus used for the purpose of business - interest paid thereon is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 818
Issues involved:
1. Applicability of section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Use of the accused's statement recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Adequacy of the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC.
4. Appropriateness of conviction and sentence under section 135 (1) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Summary:
1. Applicability of section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner argued that section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not apply as the goods were initially seized by the police and not by the Customs Department. The appellate court accepted this argument, and it was held that section 123 was not attracted. The High Court agreed with the appellate court's finding and decided not to interfere, stating, "section 123 of the Act of 1962 has not been attracted by the appellate court thus I do not want to stretch my opinion beyond the opinion of the appellate court."
2. Use of the accused's statement recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner contended that his statement recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be used against him, citing Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that section 108(4) deems such statements as judicial proceedings. The court held, "I do not find any illegality if the statement of the accused has been used to prove prosecution case," especially since the accused did not retract his statement.
3. Adequacy of the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC:
The petitioner argued that the questions asked during his statement u/s 313 CrPC were inadequate. The court reviewed the statement and found that specific questions were asked in reference to Ex.P-8, the statement recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court concluded, "both the issues raised in reference of section 108 of the Act of 1962 and section 313 CrPC cannot be accepted."
4. Appropriateness of conviction and sentence under section 135 (1) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner was convicted under section 135 (1) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court noted that section 123 was not applied by the appellate court, thus section 135 (1) (i) could not be attracted. The court modified the conviction and sentence to fall under section 135 (1) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, stating, "with the small modification of sentence i.e. instead of the sentence under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 135 of the Act of 1962 it is made under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 135 of the Act of 1962 thus sentence is maintained."
Conclusion:
The criminal revision petition was disposed of with a modification in the conviction and sentence, changing it from section 135 (1) (i) to section 135 (1) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court clarified that this judgment applies to the un-amended provisions of the Act as existing at the time of the incident.
-
2013 (1) TMI 817
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MADRAS ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the issue of service tax on Construction of Residential Complexes for the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation. The decision was based on a previous stay order and the similarity of facts in the present case. Waiver and stay were granted in these appeals.
-
2013 (1) TMI 816
Disallowance of commision expense and travelling expense - Held that:- The assessee claimed 10% commission on sale of fire fighting vehicles to Director of Fire and Emergency Services, JandK which is an undertaking of Government of Jammu and Kashmir (JandK), Srinagar - A.O. disallowed the claim of assessee on the ground that commission was not paid for the purpose of business - the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in support of the claim that commission was paid against the services rendered - settled law that mere payment itself would not entitle the assessee to deduction of such commission unless the same is proved to be paid for commercial consideration and expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The onus of proof is always on the assessee - When supply of goods is made to Government Departments, commission is not allowable unless it is established that commission was paid for services other than services related to supply of goods to Government Department - Hence commission expenditure in respect of goods supplied to Government Department can not be said to be an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and secondly it would be disqualified under explanation to section 37(1) as being opposed to public policy
As regards the traveling expenses claimed by the assessee, it pertains to Commission Agent - Since the commission payment itself is disallowed as non-genuine, therefore, there is no question of allowing traveling expenses on Commission Agent since the expenditures were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - decided in favor of Revenue
-
2013 (1) TMI 815
Issues Involved:1. Validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147. 2. Merit of various additions/disallowances. Summary:1. Validity of Reopening of the Assessment u/s 147:Both appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Ld. CIT(A) VIII, Ahmedabad for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The primary issue is the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147. The assessee contended that the reopening was unjustified as the original assessment order had merged with the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and the tribunal. The assessee relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Nirma Chemicals Works P. Ltd. and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kelvinator (India) Ltd., arguing that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and no new facts were brought on record by the A.O. The Ld. D.R. supported the reopening, stating it was based on subsequent amendments and judgments. However, the tribunal found that except for the DEPB receipt objection, the A.O. did not refer to any amendments or judgments. The tribunal noted that the original assessment for 2003-04 was completed after the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 2005, and for 2002-03, the amendment was not properly considered by the A.O. The tribunal concluded that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and was not valid, following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kelvinator (India) Ltd. 2. Merit of Various Additions/Disallowances:Since the tribunal held that the reopening was invalid, the other grounds raised by the assessee regarding the merit of various additions/disallowances became infructuous and did not require adjudication. Conclusion:In the result, both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (1) TMI 814
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of provision for EL encashment u/s 43B(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-II Hyderabad regarding the disallowance of provision for EL encashment u/s 43B(f) for the assessment year 2007-08. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer's disallowance should have been upheld as the provision was not actually paid before the due date for filing the return. The Revenue also argued that the matter was not finalized as the Supreme Court had admitted a Special Leave Petition against a Kolkata High Court decision related to the issue.
The Tribunal found that the issue was previously decided in favor of the assessee in a prior order dated 19th November, 2012, based on an earlier decision for the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal highlighted that under section 43B(f), leave encashment should be deductible only when actually paid by the employer to the employees. The Tribunal emphasized that leave encashment is not a statutory or contingent liability but a provision for an employee's entitlement earned during a specific financial year. The Tribunal concluded that the consistent view taken in the assessee's previous cases supported upholding the CIT(A)'s order for the current year.
Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of provision for EL encashment u/s 43B(f) for the assessment year 2007-08.
Order pronounced in the court on 22.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 813
Issues Involved:
The appeal by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 4-3-2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal No. 1201/2006-SM, regarding the claim for refund and the concept of unjust enrichment.
Summary of Judgment:
Issue 1: Claim for Refund and Unjust Enrichment
The respondent-assessee, engaged in the manufacture of wool worsted and polyester blended yarn, was directed by the Assistant Commissioner to deposit the remaining amount of duty short paid and file a separate refund claim for the excess duty paid in relation to yarns transferred for captive consumption. The Appellate Authority directed the adjustment of the duty recoverable against the excess payment made by the assessee, leading to the refund of the short paid amount. The Tribunal upheld the refund, stating that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to provisional assessments. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply to pre-deposits. The Tribunal further held that deposits made during the pendency of an appeal become refundable upon success, and unjust enrichment provisions are not attracted.
Issue 2: Application of Unjust Enrichment
The Revenue contended that there was no provision for adjusting excess paid duty under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and refund eligibility required proof that the incidence was not passed on. However, the Tribunal found no error in the refund order, as the amount was deposited in compliance with the Appellate Authority's order. The Tribunal affirmed the orders of the Appellate Commissioner and Dy. Commissioner, stating that the principles of unjust enrichment did not apply to the deposited amount.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the refund of the short paid duty amount, rejecting the Revenue's appeal based on the concept of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found no error in the orders passed by the Dy. Commissioner and Appellate Authority, affirming that the deposited amount was refundable and unjust enrichment principles did not apply. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee.
-
2013 (1) TMI 812
Issues involved: Determination of whether income from the sale of land should be treated as business income or capital gains.
The judgment addresses the question of law regarding the classification of income arising from the sale of land as either business income or capital gains. The dispute revolves around whether the land should be considered as stock in trade or as an investment. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the respondent company treated the land as an investment in its books of accounts, held the land for 10 years without taking steps for development, and thus, the profit from the sale should be taxable under the head of capital gains.
The Tribunal's decision, based on the concurrent findings of fact by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, did not give rise to any legal question. The revenue did not argue that these findings were incorrect or unreasonable. Therefore, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
2013 (1) TMI 811
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Treatment of income from debt assignment as business income versus capital gains.
3. Justification of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
4. Jurisdictional issues related to the issuance of notice under Section 153A instead of 153C.
5. Re-determination of the sale price of shares by CIT(A).
6. Levy of interest under Section 234B and 234D.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 153C:
The assessee argued that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. The documents seized were already disclosed in the annual report and did not indicate any undisclosed income. The Tribunal noted that the AO issued a notice under Section 153A, which was incorrect because the assessee was not a searched party. The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as the notice issued under Section 153A was without jurisdiction.
2. Treatment of Income from Debt Assignment:
The AO treated the profit from debt assignment as business income, while the assessee claimed it as a capital transaction. The Tribunal upheld the AO's view, noting that the assessee itself treated the debt assignment as a business transaction in its annual accounts and returns. The conversion of debt into equity shares and subsequent sale was considered as part of the business activity, thus taxable under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Justification of the Addition by AO and CIT(A):
The AO added Rs. 42,20,31,114 as income from debt assignment, which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs. 6,43,20,260 by re-determining the share value at Rs. 10 per share. The Tribunal found that the AO's computation was incorrect as it ignored the sale of shares at a loss. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 42 crore addition but disagreed with the re-determination of the share value, stating that the CIT(A) had no power to alter the sale price unless the transaction was found to be bogus.
4. Jurisdictional Issues Related to Notice under Section 153A:
The Tribunal noted that the AO issued a notice under Section 153A instead of 153C, which was incorrect as the assessee was not a searched party. The Tribunal found no evidence that a proper notice under Section 153C was issued. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were held to be invalid due to the incorrect assumption of jurisdiction.
5. Re-determination of Sale Price of Shares by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) re-determined the sale price of shares at Rs. 10 per share, which the Tribunal found to be beyond the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act does not permit changing the sale value unless the transaction is bogus. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were confirmed by the purchasers and there was no evidence of collusion. Thus, the CIT(A)'s re-determination of the sale price was not upheld.
6. Levy of Interest under Section 234B and 234D:
The Tribunal noted that the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234D is consequential and directed the AO to follow the provisions of the Act while levying interest.
Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, primarily on the grounds of jurisdictional issues and the incorrect re-determination of the sale price of shares. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, as the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper jurisdiction and adherence to legal provisions in tax assessments.
-
2013 (1) TMI 810
order u/s.263 - Applicability of section 40 (a)(ia) - Deduction of TDS - As per assessee TDS was required to be deducted and deposited into Govt. A/c. by 31.03.2006 - Deposit in Govt. A/c. was made much later i.e. on 05-10-2006 instead on before 31.03.2006 - As per Ao it is not clear that whether such tax was deducted at source out of the amounts paid/credited by the assessee - Hence Ao disallowed the same - this issue is restored to AO - Reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given by the AO to the assessee - Matter remanded back
Held that:- Appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation - assessee has applied for condonation of delay - The period of delay is nominal of 09 days - In case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [[2002] 253 ITR 798 / 122] - it has been held that pragmatic approach should be adopted while exercising discretion in condoning delay but a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days - thus the delay is condoned - decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 809
Disallowance of ₹ 6,62,50,000/- u/s. 14A - Interest expenditure - Held that:- there has to be nexus between the borrowed fund and investment made and the same can be established only when it is shown that interest free funds were not available with the assessee - there was sufficient interest free funds available with the assessee and Department failed to establish the link between the borrowed fund and the investment made by the assessee in the equity shares, addition made on account of disallowance of ₹ 6,62,50,000/- by AO has been deleted - assessee had not used borrowed funds, for the purpose of investment in equity shares - Tribunal has allowed the interest free expenses incurred for earning the dividend and allowed the deduction under Section 80M
-
2013 (1) TMI 808
Delay in filing the appeal - Held that:- assessee was under the bonafide belief that no appeal need to be filed against the order of CIT till reassessment is made - On the facts of the case it is deemed fit in the interest of justice to condone the delay of 26 days - Decided in favor of assessee
Whether TDS deducted on professional charges and interest charges - levy interest u/s.201(IA) - Held that:- The scope of the order u/s.263 is restricted to the income and expenditure in computation of taxable income - The failure to deduct tax at source and levy of interest there on are to be considered under separate provisions - Thus AO cannot levy interest u/s.201(IA) - Decided in favor of assessee
Interest income on loans advanced by the assessee to M/s. Adarsh Developers (P) Ltd - Held that:- As per the agreement a coupon rate of 4% p.a for he first quarter was decided - Such interest is subject to TDS - The borrower co. invested the amount in share capital of another co. - the assessee co. has not derived any interest from M/s Adarsh Developers Pvt. Ltd and no interest has been provided in its books - the order of CIT is to be setaside - decided in favor of assessee
Disallowance of ₹ 5,35,748/- as factory maintenance - Held that:- assessee acquired a property in auction - incurred expenditure of ₹ 5,35,000 as maintenance of plant and machinery - assessee had neither produced any evidence regarding such expense - issue is set aside for reconsidering the allowability of expenditure - remanded bck
-
2013 (1) TMI 807
Issues involved: Estimation of business income by applying a mark-up on expenses without proper basis.
Summary:
The appeal was against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee, a part of Anand group companies, provided professional services and business facilities to its group companies. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) observed a loss from the business due to high expenses compared to receipts. The A.O. estimated the business income at 20% of the expenses, adding Rs. 6,93,23,955 to the income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed this addition, leading to the assessee's appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
During the hearing, the assessee argued that the A.O. had estimated the income without a proper basis. The A.O. had not considered the receipts from group companies, which were genuine and as per mutual agreements. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had not provided any supporting material for the mark-up estimation. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the A.O. for a fresh examination, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found the estimation of business income without proper basis and remanded the matter for a fresh examination by the A.O. to consider all relevant aspects and provide a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
-
2013 (1) TMI 806
Determination of Arms length price - whether closing stock to be included in calculation of operating profit margin - Held that:- It is impermissible to add up figure of closing stock without giving effect to the figure of opening stock - Thus TPO is erred in computing operating profit - Remanded back for calculation of correct operating profit margin
Disallowance of PF and ESIC dues - paid beyond the due date under respective Acts but before the due date of filing the return - Held that:- since the amount is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) it cannot be disallowed - Decided in fravor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 805
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on additional income offered in response to notice u/s 153A for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
ITA No.5658/Del/2012:
The Appellate Authority confirmed penalty of Rs. 36,54,925/- u/s 271(1)(c) on additional income offered by the appellant, which was assessed protectively. The appellant argued that penalty cannot be imposed based on entries in seized documents. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and held that penalty cannot be imposed if the return of income filed u/s 153A is accepted by the Assessing Officer, as there will be no concealment of income. The penalty was deleted based on this reasoning.
ITA No.5659/Del/2012:
Similar to the first issue, the Appellate Authority confirmed penalty of Rs. 9,87,830/- u/s 271(1)(c) on additional income offered by the appellant. The Tribunal followed the same reasoning as in the previous case and deleted the penalty based on the acceptance of the return of income filed u/s 153A.
The search operation u/s 132(1) was conducted on 22.11.2006, leading to the filing of return of income by the appellant in response to notice u/s 153A. The difference in income declared was due to additional undisclosed income from trading and commission on spices. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed during the assessment u/s 153A, which was confirmed by the CIT (A). The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, held that penalty cannot be imposed if the return of income filed u/s 153A is accepted, leading to the deletion of the penalties in both appeals.
The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Explanation 5 of sec. 271(1) of the Act and the applicability of penalty provisions in cases of search assessments. The Orders under appeal were set aside, and the penalties were deleted in favor of the assessee.
*Note: Separate judgment was not delivered by the judges.*
-
2013 (1) TMI 804
Additions on account of adjustment made to arms length price in respect of international transactions - Held that:- similar question raised by the Revenue in the Assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No. 6869 of 2010 - thus adjustment made to arms length price cannot be entertained
Deletion of addition being interest receivable on outstanding amount - Held that:- interest income is associated only with the lending or borrowing of money and not in case of sale - the specific finding of the ITAT is that there is complete uniformity in the act of the assessee in not charging interest from both the Associated Enterprises and Non Associated Enterprises debtors and the delay in realisation of the export proceeds in both the cases is same - hence there is no reason to entertain the matter - Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order
............
|
9911796707
