Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 563 - AT - Income TaxMAT - Addition made u/s. 115JB on account of provision for contingency - HELD THAT:- Upon careful consideration, we find that if finally assessee has been called upon to pay more than the amount provided for the concerned period, the same cannot be said to be unascertained liability. Hence, we direct that if against the same liability, which has been held to be unascertained, subsequently assessee has paid the amount, the same cannot be said to be provision for unascertained liability. The Assessing Officer shall examine the subsequent payment and decide as per our observation as above. Deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for other income - HELD THAT:- We find that the learned CIT(A)’s finding is cogent that these receipts cannot be said to be profit derived from the industrial undertaking. They are admittedly beyond the first degree and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Liberty India [2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] is squarely applicable. Since this issue is decided on the basis of applicable Hon’ble Supreme Court decision, dealing with other decisions is not relevant. Moreover, as regards the issue of foreign exchange gain is concerned, the learned CIT(A) has given a finding that no detail regarding the same was furnished before him. Before us also, the learned counsel of the assessee has shown his inability and submitted that details are not available. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the same. TP Adjustment - proportionate adjustment sustained under Section 92C of the Act with respect to the arm’s length price of technical services made to the associated enterprise - HELD THAT:- In assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09 keeping the principles of judicial consistency and judicial discipline, it is directed that the arm’s length price of the said transaction of technical service fees be taken at 50% of the amount claimed by the appellant (full consideration for clauses (a) and (b) of the agreement and half consideration for clauses (c), (d) and (e) of the agreement). Hence the arm’s length price of the international transaction would be ₹ 1,73,25,000/-. This means an adjustment of ₹ 1,73,25,000/- is required to be made to the said international transaction. The AO is directed accordingly. Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A - First contention is that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is to be limited to the extent of exempt income earned - HELD THAT:- We find that the contention of the learned counsel of assessee is cogent inasmuch as the same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] Second contention of assessee is having sufficient interest free funds and hence no disallowance for interest is to be done under Section 14A - This claim is supported by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . We find this submission is also cogent. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid case has duly accepted that no disallowance for interest is to be done under Section 14A of the Act if assessee is having sufficient interest free funds available with it. It was also expounded that assessee was not required to bring out a one-to-one co-relation - we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, to do computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act afresh.
|