Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2017 2017 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 281 to 300 of 1963 Records

• 2017 (3) TMI 1684
  

  Capital gain on transfer of converted shares - partnership firm - contention of Assessees that share were converted into stock in trade thus no capital gain - Held that:- Dismissed.

  See order of date passed in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, LUCKNOW VERSUS BIJAI KUMAR JAIN, S.K. JAIN, RAVI PRAKASH SINGH, RAJENDER SINGH, D.K. KADKADE, RAVI PRAKASH SINGH [2017 (5) TMI 300 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1683
  

  Business auxiliary services - services of promotion of sales of products in India of the principals located outside India (China & Spain) - Export of services or not? - Held that:- The consideration was received in foreign currency for the export of services - The identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of National Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2016 (1) TMI 1013 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that In case of the commission received from foreign supplier for procuring orders from the Indian buyers to whom the goods were directly supplied by the foreign supplier, the service rendered clearly satisfies the requirement of the same being the export of service.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1682
  

  Disallowance under Section 14A - Held that:- Assessing Officer (AO) did not expressly record reasons for rejection of that figure and instead proceeded to disallow a sum in excess of ₹ 5,61,02,732/-. The DRP reduced this figure to ₹ 2,56,62,215/- which was ultimately rejected by the ITAT by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Cheminvest Limited v. CIT-VI [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and ACB India Limited v. ACIT [2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT]

  This Court is of the opinion that since the ITAT has relied upon the judgments of this Court which have explained the scope of Section 14A in such circumstances, no question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1681
  

  CENVAT Credit - input services - Marine Policy for export of goods - Travel Agents Services/Rent-a-Cab services - Held that:- The issues relating to eligibility of CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on Premium paid on Marine Policy for export of goods, Travel Agents Services/Rent-a-Cab services are squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner vs. Essar Oil Limited [2015 (12) TMI 1062 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], and Commissioner vs. Dynamic Industries Limited [2014 (8) TMI 713 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that the credit on both these services allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1680
  

  Penalty u/s 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - SCN has alleged suppression of facts and was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation - Held that:- There is no element of suppression on the part of the appellant in defrauding the service tax. On pointing out the mistake that the appellant is liable to pay service tax, the amount of service tax in question was deposited by the appellant with interest. Thus, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 73 ibid, there was no necessity for issuance of show cause notice, only for imposition of penalty - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1679
  

  Claim of commission and brokerage u/s 37 - Held that:- The contentions which are raised by the department is required to be considered and the same has been considered at length. The basic contention is that the Tribunal while discussing the matter has observed that in the previous year the department itself has accepted it and was not challenged. Apart from that, the commission which has been paid was paid by account payee and the same was verified. The commission which has been paid from accounts was also verified by the department. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that books of account are not rejected and the same is accepted. Thus the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and the first issue is required to be answered in favour of the assesseee and against the department.

  Sales tax incentive as a capital receipt - constructive payment for the purpose of section 43B - Held that:- For Section 43B of the Act, in our opinion, in view of para 9 of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd. (2008 (5) TMI 631 - DELHI HIGH COURT), the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and this issue is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.

  Section 80JJAA claim permanency is not there and increase is there. The Tribunal while considering the same has taken into consideration the provisions of that Section and rightly granted the benefit in favour of the assessee. Therefore that issue is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.

  Regarding Section 43B of the Act, establishment and research is always for the purpose of benefit of the business. In that view of the matter, the said issue is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1678
  

  Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - approach the Court for challenging the reassessment proceedings - Held that:- Delhi High Court in the case of Samsung India Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax & Ors. [2013 (11) TMI 820 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Asian Paint Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. [2007 (1) TMI 159 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]; and Garden Finance Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2003 (10) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein all the three High Courts have held that after the assessing officer disposes of the objection filed to a notice under Section 147 by a speaking order, the Assessing Officer should give substantial time between 3 to 4 weeks to the petitioner or the assessee to approach the Court for challenging the reassessment proceedings on merit, may be in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and it is only thereafter that the reassessment proceeding should be concluded.

  Taking note of all these circumstances and considering the submissions made in detail before us, we find that its a case where arguable grounds have been raised and therefore, we cannot dismiss this writ petition in limine at this stage. The objections raised by the petitioner and the justification for the objections given by the Revenue requires serious and detailed consideration.

  Accordingly, we are not inclined to dismiss the writ petition at this stage as canvassed by Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel.

  We admit the writ petition, direct that the interim order shall continue to remain in operation, we grant liberty to the parties to complete the pleadings and thereafter, the matter be listed for final hearing

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1677
  

  Economic Offences Court - Held that:- Court at Visakhapatnam constituted as the Economic Offences Court is now functioning and taking up the matters under the Income Tax Act besides other special constituents mentioned in the notification filed by the petitioners. In which case, the present case now pending on the file of the Special Judge of Economic Offences Court at Hyderabad shall automatically stands transferred to the Economic Offences Court at Visakhapatnam i.e., IV Additional District and Sessions Judge – cum- II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, which is designated as Economic Offences Court. Therefore, the Economic Offences Court at Hyderabad shall transmit the records to the Economic Offences Court at Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1676
  

  Disallowance u/s 14A made in the course of the search - ITAT cancelled the disallowance in excess of ₹ 69 lacs, was unwarranted because there was no tax imposition income in the given year relying on decision in Cheminvest Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT) - Held that:- Since the ITAT followed the ruling of this Court, and there was no tax imposition income, there could not have been any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Its decision, therefore, is sound and does not call for any interference. - Decided against revenue

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1675
  

  Disallowance of excess provision for purchase of power - Addition to the returned income on account of non considering the reversal of excess billing - assessee company in its return of income had claimed setting off of the carried forward losses of erstwhile MSEB in its hands, on the basis that as MSEB was demerged into three companies - Held that:- The tariff chargeable by the assessee company from MSEDCL for the F.Y. 2005-06 would stand regulated by the order of MERC dated. 07.09.2006.

  Our aforesaid view stands fortified by the order in the case of M/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT,10(1), Mumbai [2015 (10) TMI 597 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein confirmed the disallowance of excess provision for purchase of power amounting to ₹ 320.72 crores by MSEDCL from the assessee company, viz. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. We thus while disposing of the appeal of the purchaser company, viz. MSEDCL, had already related the order of the Commission, viz. MERC with the year under consideration, i.e A.Y. 2006-07, therefore we find no reason to take a different view, and as such delete the addition of ₹ 320,72,82,510/- in the hands of the assessee company. The ‘Ground of appeal No. 1’ is thus allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

  Admission of additional evidence - Held that:- CIT(A) had called for a ‘remand report’ from the A.O, and thereafter perusing the contentions of both the parties, viz. the assessee and the revenue, had therein adjudicated the respective issues. Thus in the backdrop of the facts involved in the present case, we do not find any infirmity in the admission of ‘additional evidence’ by the CIT(A), and are thus unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the contention of the A.O that the CIT(A) had erred in admitting the ‘additional evidence’. We thus uphold the order of the CIT(A) on the issue under consideration, and as such dismiss the ‘Ground of appeal No.1’ raised by the department before us.

  Addition u/s 43B - interest payable to ‘Power Finance Corporation’ (‘P.F.C’) which had become due during the period 31.05.2005 to 31.03.2006, which in case of non payment would had attracted a disallowance u/s 43B - Held that:- The interest of ₹ 5,492.54463 (in lac), which had become due on the ‘Project loan’ raised by the assessee company from P.F.C, as had become due during the period 31.05.2005 to 31.03.2006, would had called for a disallowance u/s 43B, if the said interest would had been payable as on 31.03.2006, and had not been paid by the assessee company upto the ‘due date’ of filing of its return of income. We find that as claimed by the assessee company that no part of the interest on the P.F.C loan was payable as on 31.03.2006, therefore there was no occasion to carry out any disallowance of any part of such interest u/s 43B of the ‘Act’ - though find ourselves to be in agreement with the contention of the Ld. A.R, but then are of the considered view that the said factual position was supposed to be verified by the CIT(A), whom we find had dispensed with the same and had gone by and accepted the contention of the assessee at the very face of it, thus restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A).

  Interest eligible for capitalization - Held that:- A.O vide his remand report had categorically raised his objection on the issue under consideration, to which the assessee had reverted vide his reply dated. 09.11.2009, but then the CIT(A) merely stating that the interest and finance charges were allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) r.w.s 43(1) had on the basis of a non-speaking order, which except for making a mere reference to the statutory provisions, is absolutely bereft and devoid of any reasoning, had summarily accepted the claim of the assessee company without placing on record a satisfactory reasoning as regards the same. As the CIT(A) had allowed the aforesaid claim of the assessee on the basis of a non-speaking order, therefore in all fairness we herein restore the issue

  Allowing the claim of the prior period expenses made by the assessee company in its revised return of income - Held that:- On consideration to the aforesaid grounds of appeal so raised by the revenue before us and are of the considered view that the same are misconceived and do not emerge from the order of the CIT(A), as the latter at Page 19 – Para 2.3(f) had concluded that since it was the first year of the assessee company, therefore there could not have been any prior period expenses. Thus in light of the aforesaid facts, now when the ‘Ground of appeal no. 4’ and ‘Ground of appeal no. 5’ do not arise from the order of the CIT(A), therefore the same are dismissed.

  Claim of set off of b/f loss/unabsorbed depreciation - Held that:- We find that the CIT(A) had merely given ‘directions’ to the A.O for carrying out certain verifications as regards the assessed brought forward unabsorbed losses and depreciation of erstwhile MSEB, as was available as a final outcome of the further appellate orders passed in the case of MSEB. Final outcome of the exercise carried out by the A.O in pursuance to the directions of the CIT(A), would safely take care of the issues assailed by the revenue vide ‘Ground of appeal no. 6’ , hereinabove. Thus in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts as they so remain, we find no infirmity in the aforesaid directions of the CIT(A), and finding no reason to interfere in the said directions of the CIT(A).

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1674
  

  Business Auxiliary Service - case of Revenue is that the assessee viz. M/s. L.M.J. Service Ltd. did not provide any service to the customer and the money received by the assessee viz. M/s. L.M.J. Service Ltd. is not related to services under 'Business Auxiliary Service' - Held that:- The incentives received by the assessee from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. are related to sale and purchase of cars and they are having different nomenclature for the same like loyalty discount/claim/incentive, demo claim, expenses claim and so on - Revenue has not been able to prove that these amounts or incentives relate to services rendered under Business Auxiliary Service by the assessee viz. M/s. L.M.J. Service.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1673
  

  Whether the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees' of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules of 1981 made under the said Act, so far as the pay scales of the teachers are concerned, are applicable to the Minority or Non-minority Private Unaided Schools? - Held that:- In the present case, it is not because of any executive instructions that the respondents are being asked to ensure equal pay for equal work. The Act of 1977 and the Rules of 1981, which have statutory force, make it obligatory on the part of the respondents to ensure equal pay for equal work. In view of this distinguishing fact, the judgment of Madras High Court, cited above, would be of no help to the respondents to escape from the liability to ensure equal pay for equal work - the provisions of the Act of 1977 and the Rules of 1981, are applicable to the Minority as well as Non-minority Unaided Schools, so far as the pay scales of the teachers are concerned.

  Whether the Maharashtra Employees' of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2016 are enforceable? - Held that:- The Amended Rules of 2016 were previously published by the Government as required by sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act of 1977. Sub-section (4) falls under the category (ii) i.e. "Laying subject to negative resolution", as explained in "Craies on Statute Law". The last sentence of sub-section (4) of Section 16 shows that such modification or annulment made by the Legislature shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done or omitted to be done under the rules framed under sub-section (1). This sentence itself indicates that the said Rules would be legally enforceable until they are modified or annulled and whatever has been done or omitted to be done under that those Rules prior to that, would not be invalid - sub-section (4) has to be treated as directory and not mandatory.

  Whether the Writ Petitions filed by the Assistant Teachers are maintainable? - Held that:- If the provisions of the Act of 1977 and Rules of 1981 cast the duty on the minority or non-minority private unaided school to pay salary to the teachers on par with their counterparts serving in the private aided schools, the respondents are under a legal obligation to follow those provisions. If the respondents neglect or avoid to follow those legal provisions, a writ of mandamus certainly can be issued against them. In the present case, the petitioners are claiming the pay scales as have been prescribed in Schedule 'C under Rule 7(i) of the Rules of 1981. The pay scales are prescribed in Schedule 'C. Since they are supported by the provisions of the Act of 1977 as well as the Rules of 1981, they are legally enforceable and the writ petitions seeking enforcement of the provisions of the Act of 1977 and the Rules of 1981, so far as the pay scales are concerned, are quite maintainable.

  Whether the doctrine of contracting out would assist the Educational Institutions in denying the same pay scales to the Assistant Teachers, which are payable to their counterparts under the provisions of the Act of 1977 and the Rules of 1981? - Held that:- The amendment to Schedule 'C would be enforceable from 8th September, 2016 i.e. the date on which the amendment was published in the Official Gazette. The petitioners are entitled to get pay scales as prescribed in Schedule 'C' (prior to the amendment) till 7th September, 2016. Though the petitioners have claimed pay scales as recommended by the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions with arrears, they are entitled to get their pay fixed and claim arrears, if any, as per the pay scales prescribed in Schedule 'C' as existed prior to the Amendment i.e. upto 7th September, 2016 and then in terms of the Amended Schedule 'C' from 8th September, 2106 onwards.

  Grant of Stay to the execution of the order passed - Held that:- The revised pay scale would be applicable from 1st January, 2016 only, as per the Amendment made in Schedule 'C' which was the claim of the respondents - Institutions themselves - stay cannot be granted to the execution of the order passed today.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1672
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - provision in bad debt and doubtful debt - Held that:- As assessee has merely failed to provide the provision in bad debt and doubtful debt though the provision is made as per RBI guidelines in the earlier was excess. The assessee has directly claimed the deduction in computation of income instead of providing same in the books for debting in the P & L account as per the provisions of the Act.

  The assessee had neither concealed nor filed any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has duly disclosed the facts of income in its return of income filed before the department. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is held that a mere making claim which is not sustainable in law will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1671
  

  SSI Exemption - dummy unit - clubbing of clearances - it was alleged that appellant is located at Sundarapuram, Coimbatore called as Unit-II and with the similar name, another unit is located at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore called as Unit-I - Held that: - When the appellant has not appeared to defend against the allegations of Revenue, it appears that the present appeal is an abuse of process of law for which that is dismissed - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1670
  

  Business connection in India - permanent establishment in India - Held that:- Appellant's themselves admitted to the activities of the LO are taxable in India by showing income at cost + 6% basis - thus assessee's own admission by showing income attributable to the Indian operations, it has indirectly accepted the fact that they had business connection in India and also the Indian LO as the PE of Arrow Singapore - hence assessee's arguments deserve no consideration.

  Quantification of profits attributable to the LO and the HO - Held that:- AO was reasonable in considering sectoral weightage at 50:25:25 for functions performed, assets employed and risks involved - further AO was correct in taking only 10% towards assets and risks in the intra sectoral ratio pertaining to LO and the balance 90% to the HO - hence the final quantification of 565 to LO and 235 to HO on a scale of 800 is held to be perfectly justified and accordingly quantification of 70 : 30 between the LO and the HO is upheld - The final quantification of profits attributable to the LO and the HO as per the table 1 , above , as per para 5 at 40 : 60 is also upheld

  Levy of interest u/s.234B - Applying the ratio laid by the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ANJUM MH GHASWALA AND OTHERS [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT], has held that the levy of interest u/s.234B is mandatory - all the appeals of assessee is dismissed.

  Transfer Pricing adjustment u/s 92CA - protective assessment - working capital adjustment - Held that:- CIT(A) confirmed AO's protective assessment wherein he has taken 40:60 to the LO:HO, held that the percentage of ALP as determined by the TPO should have been applied only on 40% of the total sales and the ALP should have been determined accordingly - also the working capital adjustment of 0.906% and 1.459% could be given in AY's 02-03 & 03-04, respectively - hence the orders of the CIT (A) do not require any interference and appeal of revenue is dismissed.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1669
  

  Revision u/s 263 - incriminating material for the purpose of making addition in the assessment made pursuant to notice u/s 153A - Held that:- During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has filed detailed submissions/information corroborating the statements made u/s 132(4) of the Act. Now it is settled proposition of law that in case of assessment made pursuant to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, addition should be confined or based on incriminating material alone. The AO is precluded to travel beyond the incriminating material for the purpose of making addition in the assessment made pursuant to notice u/s 153A of the Act.

  CIT was not justified in exercising power of revision when there was adequate inquiry by the AO and the view taken by the AO is one of the possible views. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [2016 (6) TMI 1004 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that the CIT was not justified in exercising power of revision where the AO, after due enquiry took one of the possible views. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1668
  

  Disallowing deduction of depreciation, employees’ expenditure and general administrative expenses - Held that:- No business activity was undertaken by the assessee so as to generate revenue inasmuch as neither golf course was ready nor any membership was enrolled nor any business activity was undertaken. Assessee was at a very early stage of completion of golf courses, therefore, it cannot be held that assessee's business activity had commenced. Find merit in the arguments of the learned DR that expenses connected with office, personal, administrative expenses cannot be allowed to the assesseee, they are to be capitalized. Revenue's appeal is allowed.

  Allocation of expenditure - headwise allocation to land proportion - Held that:- CIT(A)’s order exceeds this tribunal’s observations from going beyond headwise allocation to land proportion. We observe in these facts that the said proportion formula is not a full proof one as both these are distinct projects of residential township and a championship golf course. We thus direct the Assessing Officer to strictly allocate expenditure in question proratawise of the two projects without taking into account the land component therein. He shall finalize the consequential computation going by the gross amount of expenditure vis-à-vis the two heads and the proportion involved therein. The assessee’s third substantive ground in all of its appeal is accordingly accepted for statistical purposes

  Capitalization of expenditure disallowed on account of non commencement of business - Held that:- CIT(A) has erred in not specifically adjudicating its plea that if the above stated expenditure had to be disallowed on account of non commencement of business and it ought to be capitalized, corresponding income of each assessment year has to be directed to be adjusted against such cost of the two projects. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute the above non-adjudication in the CIT(A)’s order. We however are of the opinion that this issue requires a detailed adjudication at assessing authority’s level first

  Additions of unexplained investments - Held that:- CIT(A) has already examined Assessing Officer’s conclusions in light of assessee’s disclosure during search as spread over to various assessment years to be already more than the amounts in question. Assessing Officer presumed the assessee to have paid the on money in question in respect of all of its land purchased regardless of the survey nos involved and also without indicating any evidence collected during search buttressing such an assumption. Ms. Bhalla fails to indicate any evidence in the case file which could lead us to a conclusion that the assessee has actually paid any on money in respect of all the land purchases. We thus find no merit in Revenue’s argument even quoting Section 292(C) of the Act. Shri Soparkar at this stage states very fairly that the assessee does not wish to press for its pleadings in the above cross objections keeping in mind the fact that we have already upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting the impugned additions in principle.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1667
  

  Additions made on account of difference between the original and the revised return - Held that:- Once the AO was given a chance to rebut the evidences produced by the assessee, there was no justification for raising the ground of admitting additional evidences by him - since FAA has followed the procedure has laid down by law the ground raised by AO is dismissed - Decided in favor or of assessee.

  Relief in respect of claim of reversal of excess interest capitalised - Held that:- In original return the assessee had capitalised the interest and in revised return treated it as revenue expenditure - since AO had not commented upon the claim made by the assessee while filing the remand report, neither he had not brought any evidence on record to prove that expenditure was of capital nature - ground raised by AO is dismissed - Decided in favor or of assessee.

  Material cost variance and exchange rate variance allowance in the revised return - Held that:- As already discussed the issues of furnishing of additional evidences, calling for remand report by the FAA, and offering of no comments by the AO in the report about the various items of income/ expenditure - since the claim of the assessee is supported by the audited accounts - expenditure under both the heads are allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.

  Loss on pursuance of fixed assets and intangible assets - Held that:- We find that the assessee itself had stated that amount in question was not allowable. Therefore, in our opinion,the FAA was not justified in allowing the claim. Reversing his order, we decide ground number five in favour of the AO.

  Whether the cost of insuring the project has to be capitalised in the books of account? - Held that:- the expenses incurred by the assessee were for running the project - FAA had disallowed 50% of the expenditure incurred under the head insurance expenses - thus there is no contention with AO that project was a new project and the expenses were to be capitalized - ground raised by AO is dismissed - Decided in favor of assessee.

  Addition in respect of the electricity duty - Held that:- Payment made by the assessee was on account of inspection charges, that same was allowable as revenue expenditure, that the same was outside the purview of section 43B of the Act.

  Set off of brought forward losses/ unabsorbed depreciation allowable - Held that:- There was a demerger of MSEB and trifurcation into three new entitles, including that of appellant - thus in terms of section 72A( 4) r. w.s. 2(19AA) of the Act, the appellant was entitled for benefit of set off of balance b/f. losses / depreciation of MSEB against its income - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1666
  

  Transfer pricing - Selection of comparables for international transaction of contract research and testing services - Held that:- Celestial Labs is not functionally comparable to the assessee as it is also in the field of research in pharmaceutical products and should be considered as comparable - AO has not followed the directions of the DRP fully - assessee is permitted to raise all the legal and factual issues before the DRP and may also submit the order of the Tribunal before the DRP for its consideration - DRP shall decide this issue afresh - appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed, for statistical purpose

  ---

• 2017 (3) TMI 1665
  

  Rectification of the Register of Members of Respondent no.1 Company - recording the name of the petitioner in respect of her 903 equity shares - violation on the part of agents - Held that: - petitioner’s complaint of being cheated is not an isolated case and appears to be the handiwork of insiders of Respondent no. 1 and/or their agents Respondent no.2. The petitioner should not be made to suffer for their acts - The petitioner has further been able to satisfy this Bench that as per the guidelines of SEBI (Registrar to an issue and Share Transfer Agents) Regulations 1993, there was no diligence exercised by Respondent no.2 at the time of recording the change of address and issuance of duplicate shares. The documents purportedly filed for this purpose appear forged on the very face of it.

  The SEBI guidelines provide that a Company is liable for all acts of its Agents and cannot shirk the responsibility towards their shareholders. It mandates that under such circumstances the Respondent Company has to make good the loss by purchasing shares from the open market and transferring the same to the aggrieved shareholder.

  This Bench is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to rectification of the Register of Shareholders maintained by the Respondent no.1 Company in Folio no. 031308 registering her as the rightful owner of 903 shares. The original of these certificates, in the physical form, are still in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner may take adequate steps to get the same demated after due confirmation of the rectification of the Register having been carried out - The petitioner would also be entitled to all dividends declared on the aforesaid shares which have not been passed on to her. She would also be entitled to any bonus shares or other benefits that may have accrued on these shares.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

1 ....111213141516171819........ 99