Pursuant to the insertion of the concept of “block of assets” w.e.f. 1.04.1988, depreciation is allowable on the WDV of the “block of assets” and individual assets lose their identity upon introduction into the block. The department’s argument that user of each and every asset is essential is not acceptable because it would mean that the assessee has to maintain the details of each asset separately and this would frustrate the very purpose for which the amendment was brought about.
The fact that the international transactions are at ALP does not mean that no addition can be made on the funds kept by the assessee with the AE. If the assessee had received funds within the normal period, it could have earned interest on the same. The potential loss is a factor to be considered while evaluating the financial impact of the international transactions between the assessee and the AE. However, a reasonable period has to be provided as interest-free period;
As the funds were mixed, it is not possible to ascertain whether the investment in tax free bonds is out of the assessee’s own funds. The source of investment in the tax free bonds was not identified. The AO did not establish any nexus between the borrowed funds and the investments in the tax free bonds. The cash flow of the assessee was not seen. Therefore, the apportionment on a pro rata basis was improper in the absence of anything brought by the AO to rebut the assessee’s stand that the investment in the tax free bonds had been made out of the funds of own funds (Minda Investments, Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H) and Winsome Textile Industries 319 ITR 204 (P&H) followed);
1. Under the Proviso to s. 92C(2) (pre-amendment w.e.f. 1.10.09) the option to the assessee to choose a price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent is available only where more than one price is determined and not where there is only one comparable instance (Sony India vs. DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Del) & DCIT vs. BASF India not followed. Perot System TSI (India) Ltd 130 TTJ 685 followed); 2. The said Proviso as amended w.e.f 1.10.09 is a substantive provision and not clarificatory and applies only from AY 2009-10 and onwards. Even otherwise, the exception provided in both the provisos of s. 92C(2) with regard to the +/- 5% variation applies only when more than one price is determined. Even under the amended law, the benefit is not available to the assessee if only one price has been determined by applying CUP method. 3. Circular No. 12/2001 dated 23.8.2001 which states that the AO shall not make any adjustment to the ALP determined by the assessee if such price is upto +/- 5% the price determined by the AO is not applicable because the assessee has not “determined” a price but has relied upon the “Agriwatch” data base. Even the AO has relied on the same data base. So, “the price determined by the assessee and the AO is the same” and the Circular is not applicable. There is also no absurdity in this interpretation; 4. The argument that the position should be seen as a whole with respect to all the transactions and not only with respect to the disputed transactions is not acceptable because the assessee has not shown that various purchases were a part of pre-arranged scheme or agreement so as to constitute a part of the indivisible transactions of purchase.
Non-production of vouchers for few expenditure incurred by the charitable trust will neither change the basic characteristic of the trust nor could it be inferred that the trust has deviated from its activities, which are not charitable in nature.
When the amount paid by the assessee to the Singapore company for purchase of computer software cannot be treated as royalty, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from such payment.
Where the assessee-company entered into non-compete agreement with one party and the same was applicable for 5 years, which period has been considered to be sufficient to give enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure claimed by the assessee in pursuance of non-compete agreement is capital expenditure, the deduction of which cannot be granted to the assessee as revenue expenditure
The AO was of the opinion that when interest accrued on loan was credited in the creditor’s account, the assessee was supposed to deduct tax at source within the meaning of provisions contained in Section 194A of the Act. Since assessee failed to deduct tax at source from the amount of interest credited in the creditor’s account, the AO passed the order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A).
Rs.1,75,57,916/- declared business profit of Rs.18,09,37,887/- in trading of shares and short term capital gain of Rs. 16,33,22,167/- from sale and purchase of shares. The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that in the preceding assessment year i.e. A.Y.2004-05, the assessee had not shown any capital gain from investment in shares. The a
CIRCULAR NO. IRDA/TPA/GDL/CIR/008/01/2011, DATED 12-1-2011 1. It has come to the notice of the Authority that in some instances policyholders could not get cashless facility at the hospital approached, due to change in the network hospitals and/ or the servicing TPA by the insurers, about which the policyholder was not properly informed. 2. Where the […]
