Get all latest income tax news, act, article, notification, circulars, instructions, slab on Taxguru.in. Check out excel calculators budget 2017 ITR, black money, tax saving tips, deductions, tax audit on income tax.
Income Tax : Explore the differences between Form 16 and Form 16A, their purposes, eligibility, and significance in income tax filing. Understa...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal case clarified the validity of reassessment notices for AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 and introduced t...
Income Tax : Learn about the planned overhaul of India’s Income Tax Act 1961, set to simplify and modernize tax laws by 2025, aiming for clar...
Income Tax : Learn how to revise TDS returns online via TRACES, correct errors, and ensure compliance. Get step-by-step guidance and understand...
Income Tax : In the alternate, assessee has also raised a ground that Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the expenditure incurred in culti...
Income Tax : Learn how CRS and FATCA enhance tax transparency, requiring foreign asset disclosure in India. Avoid penalties with complete, accu...
Income Tax : Direct tax collections for FY 2024-25 have risen 21.2% gross, with a 15.41% net growth compared to the previous year, reflecting c...
Income Tax : CBI files chargesheet against Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and four others in a Rs 10 lakh bribery case. Investigation det...
Income Tax : CBDT sets transfer pricing tolerance range at 1% for wholesale trading and 3% for other transactions for AY 2024-25, providing cla...
Income Tax : KSCAA highlights critical issues on India’s Income Tax Portal, impacting timely filings for returns and TDS with glitches, timeo...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur upheld CIT(A)'s decision to add undisclosed income under Sec 50C in the case of Kavita Samtani Vs DCIT, relating to di...
Income Tax : As per provisions of section 153C of the Act, notice required to be issued to the other person would be a notice under section 153...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur rules in favor of Deepak Kumar Samtani, dismissing penalty under Section 272A(1)(C) due to lack of evidence of non-com...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) erred in upholding addition made by AO without considering the additional evidence. Such failure t...
Income Tax : ITAT Nagpur held that the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money is liable to be quashed ...
Income Tax : CBDT grants tax exemption to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board for AY 2024-25 under Section 10(46A) of the Income Tax...
Income Tax : CBDT sets new monetary limits for waiver of interest on delayed tax payments under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, eff...
Income Tax : CBDT issues Notification No. 5/2024 for mandatory electronic filing of Forms 3CEDA and 3C-O under Income Tax Rules, effective from...
Income Tax : CBDT issues Circular No. 14/2024 allowing condonation of delay in filing tax returns for AY 2023-24 under Section 80P, benefiting ...
Income Tax : The CBDT extends the Income Tax Return due date for AY 2024-25 to November 15, 2024, as per Circular No. 13/2024 issued on October...
We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited. The reopening of assessments in the instant case is decidedly before the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, so that the first proviso to s. 147 is not applicable.
Regarding disallowance of foreign travelling expenses, it is seen that on similar circumstances and facts, the Assessing Officer has disallowed 4% of the expenditure claimed which was based on ratio of such expenses with export sales. Thus, such a view taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be disturbed without any difference in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In so far as the impugned order is concerned, there is nothing stated in the operative part which would seem to indicate that the CIC has come to the conclusion which it has, is based on the fact that, the economic interest of the country, will get effected. The CIC, in the operative part has merely recorded what has been conveyed to it vis-a-vis the procedure for selection of cases for scrutiny.
Coming to the issue regarding ICC International, we find that assessee has demonstrated, as noted earlier, that it had earned super profits during the year because of increase in supply on account of government scheme. We find that TPO has considered the assessee’s objection regarding exclusion of high margin comparables in para 8.7 of his order and the DRP in para 7.1. They have merely, inter alia, observed that comparables cannot be rejected simply because they are loss or high profit making comparables. However, they have not considered that if certain extraordinary factors materially affected the profit in a particular year then that aspects had to be taken into consideration and due adjustment was required to be made to the net profit margin for brining the comparable on the same platform at which the assessee was performing its functions.
The proposition that gain on foreign exchange if it relates to the business of the assessee is part and parcel of operating income is well established by the afore-mentioned decisions of the coordinate benches. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the gain made by the assessee on fluctuation of foreign exchange was not on account of business transactions of the assessee. In absence of any such material, following the afore-mentioned decisions of the Tribunal, it has to be held that the foreign exchange gain of the assessee is to be considered as part and parcel of the profit of the assessee and therefore should be included for the purpose of computing the profit margin of the assessee.
In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Smt.Baljinder Kaur [2009] 29 SOT 9 (URO), wherein it has been held that it is a well settled proposition that the concept of ‘fair market value’ envisages existence of hypothetical seller and hypothetical buyer, in a hypothetical market. Therefore, determination of fair market value of capital asset, as on 1.4.1981, would involve a judgement of estimation, based on relevant factors.
The first comparable taken by the TPO is CRISL Research and Information Services Ltd. The said comparable is common as the assessee has also selected the same in its original TP study. Though CRISL Ltd is basically a rating agency; however, since the segment results relating to the research activity has been taken into consideration; therefore, the other activity being rating agency does not effect the comparability solely because of this fact. The ld Sr counsel for the assessee has pointed out that about 60% of the income of the CRISL Ltd is from the related party transactions. This is a material fact that has to be considered for the purpose of selecting the uncontrolled comparable transactions as per sec. 92C(1) r.w.r 10B(1)(e) for the purpose of determination of ALP.
The next question that arises is that as to the allocation, if so, of the expenditure, when the returns as per the investment strategy adopted is toward and, consequently, bound to be earned under different income heads, being ‘capital gains’ and ‘income from other sources’ in the instant case, and while being allowable in one case (the latter), is not so under the other (the former).
In this case Assessing Officer proposed to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, while there was full and true disclosure on part of the petitioner during original assessment. With respect to the first issue of discount/commission, the Assessing Officer called for the details of such payments in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs. Such details were promptly provided. No further questions arose from the Assessing Officer in this regard. Like-wise, during the assessment, the Assessing Officer also called upon the petitioner to supply full details of the roaming charges paid to various telecom operators. Such details were also made available.
In brief, the issue is whether the time limits specified in Section 115VP(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory? Briefly stated facts are that Section 115VP was introduced for regulating method and time of opting for tonnage tax scheme. Such provision was in relation to Chapter XII-G pertaining to special provisions relating to income of shipping companies. Clause (m) of Section 115V defines “tonnage tax scheme” as to scheme for computation of profits and gains of business of operating qualifying ships under the provisions of that Chapter.
