ITO Vs M/s Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Sec (I) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee has incurred an expenditure towards the service charges of the shared premises to its group concern which has taken the same on leave and license. As per leave and license agreement, the sharing of the premises with group concern is allowed as contemplated in clause 11 of the agreement.
Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the assessee is entitled to claim expenses for obsolete stores/ spares on provisional basis or it will be allowed in the year in which it is sold
Cherokee India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Though, the assessee claimed that it has applied a mark-up of 6% on the costs, as per TNMM and should not have been doubted merely because the net result was a loss in the year under consideration. Whether such mark-up can be based on an estimated cost is required to be proved by referring to the agreement whereas the assessee could not furnish the agreement and did not place sufficient proof to support his logic of arriving at “standard cost” and in the absence of proving the same by producing any document/agreement with its principal highlighting the contractual terms of sharing cost, the learned CIT(A) was correct in holding that the special provisions of the Act have to be construed strictly and the method adopted by the tax authorities for making transfer pricing adjustments is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
ITO Vs Basic Chemicals & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- There is a wide variation between value of TDR and value of fully constructed industrial building and the two values are not comparable. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A), the AO’s letter dt. 18.12.2008 shows that while examining the AIR transaction of . two crores, the AO has mixed up the AIR transaction of two crores with purchase of TDR of Rs. 1,43,04,413/- and consequently made erroneous conclusion that there is undisclosed investment within the meaning of Sec. 69B.
ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Bajaj Auto Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- From the language of section 205 of the Act, it is clear that the bar operates as soon as it is established that the tax has been deducted at source and it is wholly irrelevant as to whether the tax deducted at source is paid to the credit of the Central Government of not and whether the TDS certificate in Form No. 16 has been issued or not. Also the mere fact that the employer may not issue the TDS certificate to the employee does not mean that the liability of the employer ceases. The liability to pay income-tax if deducted at source is upon the employer.
Asera Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- With respect to the disallowance of lease cancellation charges it is evident that this loss to the assessee was incurred due to appropriation of security deposit standing with the landlord in lieu of the loss of lease rent to the landlord. As far as the assessee is […]
Ahuja Platinum Properties Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The availability of interest free funds as given in the earlier part of this order is not in dispute. The Assessing Officer has proceeded on the assumption that the assessee did not establish the nexus between the interest free funds available with the assessee and interest free loans given to the sister concern. In this regard we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) had an occasion to examine the question with regard to disallowance of interest, where the assessee is in possession of both interest free funds as well as borrowed funds on which interest was paid by the assessee.
ACIT Vs M/s Aftek Infosys Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee’ s business is that of computer software services and products development. In order to supply software to its customers as per their requirements, the assessee has necessarily to incur certain expenses which go in making the product customised. When the sale proceeds are considered as revenue receipt, there is no reason for taking such expenses as not revenue because of the fact that there is no enduring benefit to the assessee by incurring such expenses.
CIT Vs. M/s Dehradun Club Ltd. (Uttarakhand HC)- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the provision of charging interest under Section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act is mandatory as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala & others 252 I.T.R. 1. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, but, at the same time, the assessment order must contain the imposition of interest and, only thereafter, a notice of demand could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.
The Board has received references expressing difficulties in implementation of provisions of Section 194A of the Act in a situation where in the course of the proceedings before Supreme Court/High Court/ any other court or tribunal , one or more than one litigant (hereinafter ‘the depositor’) is directed by the court that a specified amount be deposited in the bank either directly or through the court in order to protect the interest of litigants.
