Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2016 2016 (4) 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 301 to 320 of 1477 Records

• 2016 (4) TMI 1178
  

  TPA selection of comarables - Held that:- A comparable company engaged in the similar business which is having the similar FAR may be generally included though same might have been held to be not includible by the courts in some other cases. Further the contractual terms as well as host of other factors stated in above sub rule may determine the comparability analysis. If the difference arising on comparability analysis does not affect the price or profitability of comparable or if so it can be reasonably adjusted same should be taken as good comparable for the Comparability analysis. Therefore it cannot be ever assumed that if a comparable is held to be excludible in one case , it shall always be excluded in the decisions to follow subsequently. Therefore while deciding the comparability the decisions cited definitely would be perused from this angle.

  Risk adjustment - Held that:- We have carefully considered the rival contentions and fully agree with the contention of the ld. AR that an adjustment should be allowed to the assessee of the difference in the risk borne by the assessee as well as the comparables. Before us assessee has submitted a working which is based on market rate of return of 12.26% used by the TPO while granting working capital adjustment compared with 7.57% rate of return for Indian treasury bills. Based on this working assessee has computed the risk adjustment as under:- Particulars Percentage Market Interest Rate (As per TPO Order PB Pg.286) (A) 12.26% Risk Free interest (B) 7.57% Risk Premium (OA-B) 4.69% Proportion of Risk Premium Rate to Total Market Interest (D=C/A) 38.25% Average PLI of Comparables (as per AO final order) (E) for market return (PB 224) 22.56% Less: Adjustment of Risk Premium out of Market return (F=E*D) (22.56%*38.25%) 8.63% Adjusted Risk free PLI of comparables (G=E-F) 13.93% Tested Party PLI (para 1 5. 1 of TPO order) 10.24%. Without commenting on the correctness of the computation of adjustment requested by assessee we set aside this ground to the file of ld. TPO for fresh consideration in accordance with law after granting proper opportunity to the assessee for supporting its claim.

  Non including the forex gain or loss of the assessee as operating cost or operating income - Held that:- Forex gain or loss shall be treated as operating income/ expenditure both in the case of tested party as well as comparables and the PLI should be determined accordingly. Regarding the treatment for provision for doubtful debts in para 55 at page 27 of the order coordinate bench has held that this provision be treated as part of operating expenditure. In view of this finding of the coordinate bench for AY 2010-11 in assessee’s own case we direct the ld. TPO to work out PLI of comparables and the assessee on the similar lines following that order.

  Non-granting of credit for advance tax and TDS - Held that:- Assessee has submitted that the amount of advance tax has not been given credit because of error in quoting PAN no of the assessee and whereas the short credit of TDS is on account of mis-match as per form No.26AS. these facts have also been drawn attention of Assessing Officer vide letter dated 11.03.2015 and 18.11.2015. ld. DR also fairly agreed that credit may be given after verification. In view this we direct the Assessing Officer to grant credit of advance tax as well as TDS to the assessee after obtaining proper undertaking.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1177
  

  Transfer pricing adjustment - whether the comparable chosen by assessee i.e. Alphageo (India) Ltd. can be removed for computation of margin and working capital adjustment to the comparables selected by revenue can be allowed while computing margins? - Held that:- We find that the assessee’s activity in R&T includes undertaking certain samples preparation and chemical analysis activities for the agro chemical business. It supplies to its AEs the necessary formula, information and expertise to enable it to provide R&T activities. Whereas on the other hand, Alphageo (India) Ltd. is in the business of exploration and production of oil. We are of the view that these two companies i.e. the assessee and Alphageo (India) Ltd. are functionally not comparables and cannot be taken into consideration. The argument of Ld. Sr. DR that once assessee has chosen Alphageo (India) Ltd. as comparables it cannot back out now without filing multiple year data. We find that the assessee in the case of Alphageo (India) Ltd. has filed the date of three years to show any variability distortions which are having effect on determination of transfer pricing of the international transaction. We are of the view that the comparables which are available in public domain even after the conduction of the studies by assessee can be taken as comparables and considered for benchmarking. The assessee filed complete multiple year data in the case of Alphageo (India) Ltd. in its paper book, which is referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his arguments.

  In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the authorities below were not justified in including Alphageo (India) Ltd. as comparable for benchmarking for determining ALP u/s. 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act.

  For rest of the comparables for benchmarking as selected by revenue has not been disputed by assessee except claim made that working capital adjustment should be given. The assessee’s contention regarding adjustment for the differences in working capital level of the assessee and comparable companies selected by revenue, we find that the required data in relation to these companies are not available in the orders of the lower authorities or the details filed by the assessee before us. However, we are of the view that the need to carry out the working capital adjustments is for the reason that the differences on account of working capital cycle not only impact the finance cost but it also affects items of P&L Account like expenses, sale price of product, provision for bad debts etc. and in turn it affects the profit before interest and tax. Accordingly, we are of the view that to take into account the difference in the net working capital requirements between the assessee and comparables selected by revenue, appropriate adjustments should be made on account of debtors and creditors. And adjustment to working capital cycle of assessee should be made vis-à-vis the sale and total cost of each of the comparable companies. Let the assessee produce the data and TPO should analyse the same. In view of the above directions, we restore the issue to the file of the AO/TPO to give adjustment accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

  Treating the relinquishment of right as short term capital gain - Held that:- The assessee declared sale consideration while computing capital gains at ₹ 4,58,52,200/- and claimed cost of acquisition at ₹ 23.31 lacs. SIPCOT has also adjusted a sum of ₹ 1,86,47,800/- towards refund of deposit made by assessee and assessee reduced this amount from the total consideration. The AO as well as CIT(A) included this amount in total sale consideration and computed capital gains accordingly. Now before us, assessee claimed that in case this adjustment of refund of deposit by SIPCOT is to be treated as sale consideration then the assessee should be allowed this as cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gains. We find the plea of the assessee quite reasonable and accordingly direct the AO to consider this refund of deposit made by assessee with SIPCOT as cost of acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gains. The AO will verify the adjustment of refund of this deposit made by the assessee with SIPCOT and accordingly allow the claim of the assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is set aside to the file of AO in term of the above direction and is allowed for statistical purposes.

  Non-deduction of TDS by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) - non allowing set off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation while computing taxable income - Held that:- AO has not made any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and not allowing set off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation as is apparent from the assessment order and CIT(A) has also given finding of fact qua that. Since the issues are not arising out of the orders of the lower authorities, we dismiss these issues of assessee’s appeal.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1176
  

  TP adjustment - whether the TPO has erred in not considering correct OP/TC margin of M/s. M.N. Dastur & Company (P.) Ltd. of 0.18% and thereafter failed to comply with the directions issued by the ld. DRP? - Held that:- Undisputedly, during the rectification proceedings filed before TPO u/s 144 by the assessee, correct computation of OP/TC method of M/s. M.N. Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd. of 0.18% was filed which was verified by the TPO and has not disputed the same in any manner. At the same time, the AO has also allowed to perpetuate the error committed by the TPO in considering the OP/TC margin of M/s. M.N. Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd. by recording its OP/TC margin at 8.46% instead of actual OP/TC margin of 0.18%. So, we are of the considered view that the matter is required to be restored to the TPO to decide the matter afresh by taking actual margin of OP/TC by M/s. M.N. Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and then to compute the adjustment of transfer pricing. Consequently, ground determined in favour of the assessee.

  Including functionally dissimilar companies as comparable - Held that:- From the given guidelines it can be seen that unless it is shown that how the risk adjustment would change the result of each comparable and how the same would improve the comparability and unless adequate reasons are given for such adjustment, no adjustment can be allowed to the taxpayer. In the present case except pointing out various risks the taxpayer has not shown with evidence as to whether each of the risk was actually undertaken by the comparables or not and if so how these risks affected each of them and whether such adjustment would improve the comparability It may also be mentioned that it is incorrect to say that the taxpayer is working Virtually in a risk free environment. As mentioned above the taxpayer too bears several risks like technology risk, foreign exchange risk, manpower risk, etc.

  No doubt, the assessee company has claimed risk adjustment during TP proceedings for benchmarking with the comparable companies but the detail of the risk adjustment sought for by the assessee is not available on the file. So, we are of the considered view that assessee is to provide the details of the risk adjustment sought for and in case, it comes within + / - 5% then no such benefit is to be given. Otherwise, TPO is directed to decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1175
  

  Long term capital gain computation - reference to the DVO for ascertaining value of property as on 1-4-1984 - Held that:- The assessee has got a valuation report from the Government registered valuer as on 1-4-1981, which was more than the fair market value, accordingly the CIT(A) was not justified in giving cognizance to the DVO’s report. In view of the above discussion, we direct the AO to compute capital gain as per the valuation report of the registered valuer as on 1-4-1981, which is apparently more than the fair market value in terms of the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Puja Prints (2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT).

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1174
  

  Liability of interest on already reversed CENVAT credit - imposition of penalty u/r 15A of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 in respect of irregularly availed CENVAT Credit - Held that: - considering the larger bench decision in appellant's own case, J.K Tyre Industries Ltd [2016 (11) TMI 911 - CESTAT BANGALORE] there cannot be any interest liability on irregularly availed CENVAT credit which had been reversed already by the appellant. When there is no liability of interest, in this matter penalty imposed of ₹ 2000/- is not justified and is hereby dropped - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1173
  

  Allotment of land on lease basis - setting up an establishment for manufacturing IMFL, Winery and a Mini Brewery Unit - whether the transaction is amenable to service tax and the same has to be paid? - Held that: - A perusal of Section 65(90a) and Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 as quoted in the letter dated 23-11-2015 clearly shows that “Renting of Immovable Property Service” includes renting, letting, leasing, licensing or other similar arrangements amounts to providing service and under Section 65(105)(zzzz) it is a taxable service.

  What is taxable is the consideration for the transfer. Even if premium is charged that is like charging of one time rent and then rebate is given for the yearly rent to be paid. Premium is also part of the lease money. Therefore, the entire transaction both premium and rent are amenable to service tax and service tax will have to be paid on the same.

  Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1172
  

  Activity of trading - Rule 6(3) (ibid) - N/N. 3/2011-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2011 - whether the trading activity has an exempted services or not? - Held that: - for the period prior to 1-4-2011, the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case. For the period, post 1-4-2011, I find that the appellant has availed proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to their taxable service and they have not availed any Cenvat credit attributable to their trading activity, therefore, again I hold that provisions of Rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not applicable to the facts of this case - reliance placed in the case of Orion Appliances Ltd., [2010 (5) TMI 85 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] wherein it has been held that trading activity covered under sales tax law and cannot be called the services therefore, trading activity has not an exempted service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1171
  

  Renovation services - completion or finishing services falling under commercial or industrial construction services - Abatement - N/N. 15/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 and N/N. 1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006 - Held that: - It is well settled law that the law declared by the highest court of the country has to be interpreted in such a manner as if the same was the law, even prior to declaration of the same by Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, we find favour with the appellant’s stand that whatever duty stands paid by them was also wrongly paid as there was no tax liability on their part in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1170
  

  Maintainability of appeal - delay in filing appeal beyond the 90 days of receipt of the Order-in-Original - jurisdiction of first appellate authority - Held that: - the first appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond the 30 days after the 60 days time which was given for filing the appeal before first appellate authority as per the provisions of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal not maintainable and is dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1169
  

  Validity of detention order - immediate release of undisputed consignments - one sample each of the disputed consignments be taken by the Custom Authorities in the presence of the officer/representative of the DRI as well as of the petitioners, under their respective signatures, which shall be kept sealed in the custody of DRI without prejudice to the right of the Custom Authorities for acceptance of testing report dated 28.01.2016 - The petitioners undertake to join the inspection regarding verification of thickness of the imported material - matter on remand.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1168
  

  Money laundering - application seeking bail during the pendency of this writ petition - Held that:- We enlarge the petitioners on bail during the pendency of the petitions on the following conditions :

  1. Petitioners shall execute a bond of Rupees Five Lacs each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

  2. Petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the National Capital Region without prior permission of either this Hon'ble Court or the Trial Court. Similarly, petitioners shall not leave the country without the prior permission of either this Hon'ble Court or the Trial Court.

  3. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer in the Office of Enforcement Directorate, Delhi initially on every alternative day from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM for a period of fifteen days and thereafter, as and when called upon by the Investigating Agency.

  4. Petitioners shall furnish a mobile phone number to the Investigating Officer prior to their release and shall ensure the same to be operational at least between 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.

  5. Petitioners also undertake that the information furnished to their counsel by the Investigating Officer regarding their appearance before the ED would be construed to be a deemed service on the petitioner. For this purpose, the Investigating Officer may inform the counsel for the petitioner Gurucharan Singh namely Sh. Raktim Gogoi, Advocate having Mobile No. 98716-39549 and Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Advocate having Mobile No. 98100-35082 (counsel for Petitioners Chandan Bhatia & Sanjay Aggarwal).

  6. Petitioners shall not in any manner have any contact directly or indirectly with any person connected with the case either as a witness or as an accused or in any other capacity.

  7. Subject to the interim/final orders passed in the Provisional Attachment Proceedings initiated by the ED relating to the Petitioner's movable/immovable property and/or his Bank Account, petitioner undertakes not to operate the Bank Account(s) without prior permission of either this Hon'ble Court or the Trial Court.

  8. Petitioners undertake to furnish all information and/or issue any written instructions and/or correspondence for and in relation to any specific purpose, as sought for by the ED for the purpose of facilitation of investigation, except any self incriminating disclosure.

  9. Petitioners shall answer each and every query put to them either orally or in writing by the Investigating Agency without any delay and in case, some data or record is to be collected, for answering such query, the same shall be endeavoured to be done within 24 Hours.

  10. Petitioners shall not in any way directly or indirectly have any link; interaction; dealing and/or connection of any nature whatsoever, with any foreign firms/companies/entities/banks/accounts etc. including those who/which are the subject matter of present investigations conducted and in progress by ED.

  11. Petitioners undertake not to deal with and/or carry out any export/import activity and/or transactions relating thereto either directly or indirectly.

  12. Petitioners hereby tender on record their undertaking that they would not rely upon any invoices/import orders or any other such document relating to the transactions as alleged in the Complaint filed by ED during the trial and would not claim the existence of any such document at any subsequent stage of the proceedings or trial.

  Admit.

  Leave granted to the respondents to filed counter affidavit post admission.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1167
  

  Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court - The writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn and is dismissed as such with the liberty as prayed for - The respondents will not arrest petitioner No. 2 for a week.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1166
  

  Maintainability of petition - whether the petitioner can prosecute the writ petitions when the order has already been under challenge before the CESTAT? - Held that: - I am of the view that instead of entertaining the present writ petitions, it would be suffice to direct the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal, filed by the petitioner within a time frame - I direct the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to entertain the application, to be filed by the petitioner, for transferring of the appeal in No. C/40723/15-DB to some other Bench, where, Presiding Officers are available, and also direct the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to dispose of the said appeal within a period of eight weeks - petition disposed off - matter on remand.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1165
  

  TDS u/s 194J - Addition made on account of internet charges for non deduction of tds - whether use of internet charges falls within the ambit of section 9(1)(vi) Explanation -2(iva) and 2(vi) - Held that:- Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd.(2001 (2) TMI 57 - MADRAS High Court) supports the stand of the CIT(Appeals) that payments made to obtain internet facility from BSNL would not be covered within the meaning of 'fee for technical services' so as to be liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194J as it is a payment for obtaining a standard facility and not for technical services. - Decided in favour of assessee

  TDS u/s 194H - Bank guarantee charges paid to the bank - tds liability - Held that:- The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2012 (2) TMI 77 - ITAT MUMBAI ) has held that bank guarantee charges are not liable for deduction of tax under section 194H on the ground that such transactions are on principal to principal basis and the element of agency which is essential to cover it as 'commission' as per Explanation to section 194H is absent.- Decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1164
  

  Rental value computation - reference to DVO - Held that:- Assessing Officer is expected to compute the annual rental value of the property on the basis of the method provided in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. Since the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 was not taken into consideration and the Commissioner enhanced the rent at the rate of 25% per annum, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has to compute the rental value of the property by taking into consideration of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.

  Once it is determined under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 for the assessment year 2002-03, it would be reasonable to increase the rent at the rate of 15% for every three years as suggested by the Ld.counsel for the assessee. Thus entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1163
  

  Deduction under section 80IC - whether the power and transport subsidy received by the assessee for its Assam and Himachal Pradesh units should be reduced from the profit of the business for computing deduction under section 80IC? - Held that:- Coming to a definite conclusion as far as nature of subsidy is concerned, the relevant subsidy schemes have to be examined to find out whether such subsidy are for reimbursement of actual costs incurred by the assessee towards transport and power. As the Departmental Authorities have not examined the nature of subsidy with reference to the relevant industrial policy resolution and subsidy schemes, we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. As far as the issue of particular assessment year in which the subsidy deemed to have accrued, we may observe, the Assessing Officer did not raise this issue in course of assessment proceedings. It is only the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who has raised this issue. However, there is nothing in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to suggest that assessee was given opportunity to explain its stand on the issue. Be that as it may, whether the subsidy has accrued as income in the impugned assessment year has to be decided on the basis of the fact when it was approved / accepted by the concerned authorities. Only when the concerned Government authorities verify the quantum and approve, the subsidy crystallizes as income. The decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative support this view. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify this aspect also. It must be mentioned the Assessing Officer not only should give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee but must pass a well reasoned order after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as judicial pronouncements relied upon.

  Treatment to remission of deferred sales tax loan liability as income of the assessee - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we hold that the amount being capital in receipt cannot be treated as income of the assessee.

  Disallowance of interest expenditure and administrative and other expenses under section 14A r/w rule 8D - Held that:- As before the Assessing Officer itself the assessee has submitted necessary facts which revealed that at the beginning of the year, the assessee had reserves and surplus amounting to Rs. 51122.41 lakh and share capital amounting to Rs. 2569.54 lakh. Thus, own surplus funds available with the company were to the extent of Rs. 53691.95 lakh. As against the aforesaid surplus fund, the investments held by the assessee at the year end aggregated to Rs. 9788.59 lakh which consists mainly of shares in foreign subsidiary amounting to Rs. 7438.59 lakh the dividend income from which is not exempt. Therefore, when enough interest free surplus fund is available with the assessee to take care of the investment, no disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D, as far as interest expenditure is concerned, can be made. The Assessing Officer should verify this aspect also before making any disallowance.

  Disallowance of lease rentals - Held that:- Similar issue arose in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006–07, 2007–08 and 2008–09 after considering the submissions of both the parties and relying upon the decision in ICDS Ltd [2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT ] allowed assessee’s claim of expenditure on account of lease rental.

  Disallowance of expenditure incurred on buy–back of shares - Held that:- As could be seen from the assessment order as well as the order of the first appellate authority, assessee’s claim was not considered only for the reason that it was not made through a revised return of income. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court ), restriction imposed therein for not entertaining a claim otherwise by way of revised return of income is only applicable to the Assessing Officer. That being the case, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for considering afresh in the light of the decision relied upon by the assessee.

  Transfer pricing adjustment made on the corporate guarantee provided by the assessee to its A.E. - whether the arm's length price of corporate guarantee is to be fixed at 0.25% as claimed by the assessee or at 3% as held by the Department - Held that:- On a perusal of the letter of HSBC letter dated 3rd February 2008 it is evident that for financial guarantee, the commission charged by the bank is @ 0.50% per annum. It is further relevant to note, in case of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (2015 (5) TMI 395 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court while accepting the commission rate of 0.5% on corporate guarantee provided by the assessee to its A.E. observed that corporate guarantee cannot be equated to bank guarantee. Following the aforesaid decision the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Godrej Household Products Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 520 - ITAT MUMBAI ] held the rate of guarantee commission of 0.5% as the arm's length price of the corporate guarantee provided by the assessee to its A.E. In the present case also, there is no dispute that the internal CUP by way of letter received from HSBC indicates that the commission charged for financial guarantee is 0.5%. Further, it is relevant to note that the Department in assessee’s own case has accepted the arm's length price of corporate guarantee @ 0.5% in the assessment year 2006–07 and 2007–08. Thus, on consideration of overall facts and circumstances in the light of judicial pronouncements referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the arm's length price of the corporate guarantee should be fixed at 0.5%. The Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer is directed to make adjustment accordingly.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1162
  

  Notional interest on debentures - whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that inspite of following a mercantile system of accounting, the Respondent-Assessee was entitled not to bring the notional interest on debentures subscribed by it to tax? - Held that:- Tribunal by the impugned order takes into account the fact that even in mercantile system of accounting an item would be regarded as accrued income only if there is certainty of receiving it and not when it has been waived. The Tribunal has in the impugned order very succinctly set out the principles to be applied while recovering income in following the mercantile system of accounting.

  Tribunal further referred to the fact that the various resolutions which were passed by the company as well as the communication exchanged between the parties would establish on facts that interest has been waived. Further on facts it holds that there is no reason to disbelieve the resolution passed by the Respondent-Assessee waiving interest. The Tribunal further adverted to the fact that subsequently, M/s. Marketing & Brand Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd. had amalgamated with the Respondent-Assessee which would also establish that the debentures issuing company was in serious financial difficulties which was incidentally a group company of the Respondent. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in the impugned order is a decision on facts and nothing has been shown to us which would warrant interference by this Court on account of any finding being perverse or arbitrary.

  We were informed at the hearing that for the Assessment years prior to A.Y. 2007-08 no addition was sought to be made by the Revenue on account of notional interest.The view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order is a possible view.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1161
  

  Deductions u/s 80-IB - Capital or revenue receipt - Held that:- The issue raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in "Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.", reported in (2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT) or in the alternate, in "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd.", reported in (2016 (3) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT).

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1160
  

  Restoration of appeal - Held that: - On earlier occasions when Order dated 03.12.2015 was passed by this Bench, none appeared on behalf of the Appellant, however, the Appeals were decided by this Bench on merits by giving details findings on the issue. The restoration of Order dated 03.12.2015 passed by this Bench, therefore, cannot be allowed as this court has no power to review its own Order.

  Reliance placed in the case of Alfred Berg & Co.(I) (P) Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2009 (6) TMI 673 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Held that: - the facts of the case not applicable to the case as in that case no summon was served upon the petitioner whereas in the present case the notice issued to the Appellant has not been returned undelivered - if the address given to Cestat Registry is not proper or has been changed due to any reason, then the responsibility is on the Appellant to intimate proper address to the Cestat Registry for communication - Restoration Applications filed by the Appellants dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (4) TMI 1159
  

  Denial of CENVAT credit - Iron & Steel Product - investigation in the premises of dealer - whether the denial of credit justified on the ground that the dealer was non-existent and only paper transaction took place? - Held that: - no investigation was conducted at the end of manufacturer supplier/transporter and the available evidences establish that the assessee has received the goods in the absence of any contrary evidence. On record, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the assessee merely, on the ground that at the time of investigation, the dealer was non-existent. In fact when the goods were procured by the assessee, the dealer was registered with the department. In these circumstances, no merit in the revenue's appeal - appeal rejected - CENVAT credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

1 ....121314151617181920........ 74