ITAT Bangalore held in the case of GXS India Technology Center Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that a company which is engaged in development of software products and services cannot be compared to a company which is purely software development services provider.
ITAT Delhi held in the case of Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that both the submission of the assessee is unacceptable. Regarding first submission for not carrying out any transfer pricing adjustment in view of the benefit enjoyed by it u/s 10A is concerned, we find that no exception has carved out by the statute for non-determination of the ALP of an international transaction
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited vs. ACIT that application for further stay is in favour of assessee. The reasons are that firstly, there is no change in the facts and circumstances since the last stay was extended by the Tribunal, and secondly, the major demand which has been raised prima facie appears to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal
As per the nature of business of the assessee, certain procedural non-compliance are not unusual, for which assessee is required to pay some fines or penalties. In our considered view, these routine fines or penalties are compensatory in nature; these are not punitive.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of M/s. Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that setting up of business’ and ‘commencement of business’ may be too different and independent events. For the purpose of deductibility of the business expenses, the reference point would be initial setting up of the business.
In the present case, the assessee had filed an application with National Housing Bank on 23.12.2004 and submitted along with this application Cheque No.669766 dated 23.12.2004. This fact has not been disputed by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ACIT vs. Rupam Impex that the AO has justified the mistake on record on the ground that it is attributed to the assessee. The income tax proceedings are not adversarial proceedings.
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case held that investment in share capital of a subsidiary being an international transaction on capital account does not result in income as defined under section 2(24) of the Act, the Transfer Pricing provisions a would not be applicable to such transaction. Further, in the absence of thin capitalization rules, re-characterization of debt capital into equity or vice versa not allowed.
The brokerage paid to the third party has nothing to do with the rental income paid by the tenant for enjoying the property to the owner therefore brokerage cannot be said to be a charge that has been created in the property for enjoying the rights and at best it is only an application of income received/receivable from rent
ITAT Mumbai held in the case DCIT vs. M/s. ACC Ltd. held that AO is duty bound to follow instruction of The CIT (A) being very senior officer of the Department who also also performs quasi judicial functions. The AO has all the rights to challenge the order of the CIT (A) before the appropriate judicial forum, but he is not authorized to disobey the directions given by the CIT (A).
