The TPO while rejecting the idle capacity, however, did not discuss anything about the arms length margin fixed at 11.96 per cent. This indicates that assessee’s TP study has not been considered by the TPO. The assessee has selected ten comparable companies and summary of net cost + margin varies from -6.04 per cent to 19.06 per cent.
From a perusal of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, we find that he had simply recorded the finding in the assessment order passed for the assessment year 1996-97 and a vague reference was made that similar was the position in respect of the assessment year in question. The assessment order was for the assessment year 1996-97 on which observation regarding the previous assessment year had been made, has also been reproduced above, while quoting the order passed by CIT appeal.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested a Superintendent and an Inspector of Service Tax, Department of Revenue (Ministry of Finance), CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.One Lakh from the Complainant.
CBDT Grants Exemption from TDS on the Payments of Certain Categories to Mitigate Compliance Burden on Businesses Held by Individuals, Firms or Corporate Etc Who are Using the Financial Services Offered by Banks To mitigate compliance burden on businesses held by individuals, firms or corporate etc who are using the financial services offered by banks, […]
Whether this agreed addition is to be added while calculating book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Section 115JB provides that where in the case of an assessee being a Company, the income tax payable on total income as computed under this Act is less than 10% (applicable in the impugned Assessment Year) of its book profit, such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee.
The Explanation to section 92(1) of the Act clarifies that the allowance for any expense or interest arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the ALP and therefore the disallowance is made under section 92(1) and not under section 40A(2) of the Act.
As per Explanation 7; no penalty is leviable if the assessee proves that the price charged or paid in such transaction was computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 92C and in the manner prescribed under section in good faith and with due diligence.
Having been served with a legal notice for the levy of penalty u/s. 271B, it was incumbent on the assessee to cause to comply with the provision, at least for the second year and, in any case, seek legal opinion in its respect. Rather, it could have, on its own, requested the AO not levy the penalty for that year (i.e., A.Y. 2006-07), explaining that the non-audit of its accounts u/s. 44AB stood caused only due to its ignorance of law,
Net Direct Tax Collections Figures for April-December 2012-13 Up by 13.70 Percent at Rs. 3,68,322 Crore as Against Rs. 3,23,956 Crore in the Same Period Last Year Gross Direct Tax collections during April-December of the Financial Year 2012-13 was up by 8.01 percent and stood at Rs. 4,28,278 crore as against Rs. 3,96,530 crore in […]
In so far as the DTAA between India and Canada is concerned, it is observed that article 12(4) thereof gives the definition of the term fees for include services while article 12(5)(a) provides that notwithstanding the said definition given in article 12(4), fees for included services does not include amount paid for services that are ancillary and subsidiary as well as inextricably and essentially linked, to the sale of property.
