The assessee made a claim for working capital adjustment before the TPO. The TPO made a detailed analysis exhibiting how such an adjustment is to be granted. According to the assessee, the TPO made reference to Rule 10B(3) demonstrating comparability adjustment. On the strength of this Rule, the TPO opined that Indian transfer pricing provisions prescribed only reasonable accurate adjustment. He also pointed out that thereafter the TPO made reference to OECD Commentary and also the judicial precedents on comparability adjustment.
Since the provisions of section 10A and 10B are similar in nature and as the jurisdictional High Court decided the issue while considering the provisions of section 10B also respectfully following the above, we uphold the contention of assessee that carry forward business losses and depreciation cannot be set off to the profits of the undertaking while working the claim u/s 10B. Therefore, AO is directed to do the needful in light of the above principles laid down.
It is necessary to examine the question whether it is open to the Assessing Officer, having already formed an opinion that no special audit was necessary, and not having communicated the same to the petitioner, to change his mind and form an opinion subsequently that a special audit is necessary having regard to the complexities of the accounts and the protection of the interests of the revenue.
The voluntary contribution received by a trust created only for charitable or religious purposes is to be deemed as income u/s. 11 of the Act. In case some of the objects of the trust are charitable and some of the objects can be termed as non charitable then such a trust will not be covered u/s. 12 because then it is not a trust created wholly for charitable purposes.
Allocation of assets of the firm to the retiring partners is the basis for invocation of provisions of Section 45(4). In the case under consideration, neither there was any dissolution nor other event took place that had an effect of allocation of exclusive interest in any capital asset to the retiring partners. In these circumstances, FAA was justified in holding that conditions of Section 45(4) were not fulfilled. In our opinion the firm or the continuing partners were not liable to be taxed under the head ‘capital gains’,
It is a fact that the company holds three board meetings consecutively on March 31, 2011, June 9, 2011 and September 29, 2011. It is also a fact that the petitioner has challenged the validity of the board meeting dated March 31, 2011. Even otherwise, the petitioner has requested the company to postpone the meeting dated March 31, 2011 to April 2, 2011, at 11.00 a.m.
Section 179(1) provides for a vicarious liability of the director of a public company for payment of tax dues which cannot be recovered from the company. However, such liability could be avoided if the director proves that the non recovery cannot be attributed to any gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company.
The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious, unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion.
