With this amplification of the scope of the power of the DRP, now even the matters not agitated by the assessee before the DRP can also be considered for the purposes of enhancement.
Mere mistake in making of a claim in the return of income would not ipso facto reflect concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The wrong claim of depreciation in the present case cannot be said to be made with an intention to evade taxes in as much as even after the disallowance of depreciation, the resultant income of the assessee remains a loss. In fact, the assessee had pointed out before the Assessing Officer that it has been incurring losses since the year 2003 due to the market forces. Considering the entirety of the circumstances, in our view, the impugned disallowance on account of depreciation is a mistake, and does not invite the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Abacus Distribution wins stay against Rs.8.81 Cr tax demand. Transfer pricing & depreciation issues contested. Next hearing on 8th July 2013.
In this case Payment was made for reimbursement of the permission granted to the assessee for using trade mark ‘Wool, New Zealand’. Such payment cannot be said to be fee for technical services. Even otherwise also, in the light of the detailed discussions made in paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 of this order, such reimbursement of expenses are not subject to TDS. Accordingly, no disallowance is warranted. The addition of Rs. 2,88,135/- is deleted.
The search operation was carried out at the residence as well as business premises of Shri Yakub A. Colddrink where from the books of account of the firm as per Annexure A/11 & A/12 and loose paper as per Annexure-3 were found and seized. As per Section 153C, the books of account belonging to the other person is required to be found and seized at the premises of the search took place where assessment u/s. 153A has been made i.e. searched party.
It is not disputed by revenue that the said lease agreement dt.29.6.2006 entered into by the assessee give rise to a lease in favour of the assessee and no other legal rights in the hospital building are granted to the assessee. As such, the view of the Assessing Officer that the said lease agreement brings into existence an asset of enduring nature is, in our opinion, misplaced. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 has laid down certain guidelines to determine whether, in a given case, the expenditure incurred is in the nature of revenue or capital expenditure.
On the question as to whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on the net interest income on employees loans & advances, interest on margin money and interest income on dues towards income tax refund adjustment from Essar Project Ltd., we are of the opinion that the issue involved in the present case is no more res-integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) wherein it has been held that duty drawback, DEPB benefits, rebates, etc., cannot be credited against the cost of manufacture of goods debited in the profit and loss account for purposes of section 80-IA/80-IB as such remissions (credits) would constitute independent source of income beyond the first degree nexus between profits and the industrial undertaking.
The brief facts leading to above issue are that assessee incurred undisclosed expenditure for furniture, fixture, flooring etc. incurred in respect of Flat No. 501, at 20 Lee Road, Kolkata for asst. yr. 2008-09. The said expenditure was found recorded in RM-1 and RM-2. The expenditure of Rs. 35 lakhs was incurred by the assessee in connection with purchase of furniture of director’s flat at 20 Lee Road on behalf of M/s Fort Projects (P) Ltd. It is pertinent to note that no such addition of Rs. 35 lakhs on account of undisclosed expenditure was made by AO in very first place and this will be clear from perusal of assessment order for asst. yr. 2008-09,
In the case of dredger Hector even though there is no dispute with reference to the examination of the international transactions in this year under the provisions of transfer pricing, while determining the ALP what is required to be considered is whether the price paid has any significant impact on the income. As submitted by assessee, the agreement was entered when the entities are independent and therefore, the price paid can be considered at arms length. Moreover, assessee also justified the price paid is within the permitted range of +/- 5% in both the cases, the fact of which was accepted by the CIT(A).
Relying on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal we exclude the Giant Companies namely Wipro and Infosys which are taken as comparables as turnovers of these companies are multiple number of times higher compared to that of the assessee, we hold that the DRO erred in considering their PLI to arrive at the arithmetic mean.
