:Bangalore bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Bosch Ltd. v. CIT [2009-TIOL-736-ITAT-BANG]held that the taxpayer company was entitled to claim depreciation on the skill and the know-how brought by the employees of the transferee company classified as ‘business information’ under the category of ‘other identifiable intangibles’ (goodwill) under section 32(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
G.S.R. (E). – Whereas in the matter of imports of Polypropylene [hereinafter referred to as the subject goods], falling under sub heading 39021000 or 39023000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), originating in, or exported from, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Singapore (hereinafter referred as the subject countries) and imported into India, the designated authority in its preliminary findings vide notification N
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2010-TII-ITAT-MUM-INTL) dealt with the issue of whether passing of an order by the AO is necessary for filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under section 248 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for a declaration that no tax was deductible on such income. The Tribunal held that Section 248 of the Act does not require any order being passed by the AO as a condition precedent for filing an appeal before CIT(A) . Further, the taxpayer also fulfilled all the necessary conditions required by the provision of the Act. Therefore, the taxpayer was right in filing an appeal before the CIT (A).
The taxpayer company, engaged in the business of leasing of equipments, purchased shares of WSIL on 4 April 1996 for a sum of INR 79.27 million which were sold on 30 December 1999 for INR 7 8.87 million. After applying the cost inflation index, the cost of the shares, for the purpose of computation of capital gain, worked out to INR 101.1 million which resulted in capital loss of INR 22.22 million.
ADIT v. Reliance Infocomm Ltd. – It is held that the assessee would be entitled to interest on the refund under the provisions of clause (b) of section 244A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 if the refund became due under an order passed in any appeal or any other proceeding, as referred to in section 240 of the Act.
The taxpayer, a manufacturer and exporter of chemicals had more than 97.5 percent of its sales to its associated enterprise (“AE”). It benchmarked the sales to AEs under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method based on the average price charged by the AEs to the customers. The Revenue observed that the non-AEs who purchased the chemicals paid a higher price and adopted the price charged to the non-AEs as the CUP. The taxpayer stated that the AEs operated in the insulation industry and that the non-AEs were in the aerospace sector, which also resulted in the difference in pricing. It also contended that the AE came into existence for the reason that its ultimate customers required long term warranties on the product and were more comfortable dealing with an American firm than directly with the taxpayer. It was also pointed out that the ALP determined by the Revenue turned out to be higher than even the price ultimately charged to the buyers by the AEs. It also stated that the sale to non-AEs were in small quantities and non-recurrent, which cannot be compared directly with the sales to the AEs. However, the Revenue rejected taxpayer’s contentions after considering various aspects concerning the comparability of sales to non-AEs including differences in turnover, quantity, customer profiles and geography. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the taxpayer and ruled that there was no case for the Revenue in making the adjustments and accordingly, the sales to the AEs were held to be at arm’s length.
