The limited dispute raised is regarding transfer pricing adjustment in relation to international transactions entered into by the assessee with associate enterprises. There is no dispute either regarding TNMM method followed by the AO or about variables selected for computation of transfer pricing adjustment.
The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921, squarely apply on the facts of the case as the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions precedent provided under section 80-IB(10)(d) as applicable from assessment year 2005-06.
All the agreements, invoices and related documents produced before us lead to the fact that the payments have been made only for supply of manpower for certain amount of hours and nothing more. Since there is no technology, skill, experience, technical plan, design, etc. had been made available either by the assessee or the ACSC as held by the Cit (A), invoking the provisions of Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA for treating the payments as chargeable to tax in India, is not justified.
The mistake on the part of the assessee is that the assessee invested a part amount of sale consideration/ capital gain in residential house instead of gross sale consideration and claimed deduction under section 54F. It is relevant to note that for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act investment of capital gain is the requirement whereas for claiming dedication under section 54F investment of sale consideration is the condition. From the facts of the case it is a clear cut case of bona fide calculation mistake.
Paragraph 2 of the Instruction No. 3/2011, dated 9-2-2011 shows that that it is the policy of the Government to file appeal before this Tribunal only in those cases where tax effect is more than Rs.3 lakhs. Tax effect has been defined in paragraph 4 of the said instructions as the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed
Incentives provided to the industrial units, in terms of the new industrial policy, for accelerated industrial development in the State, for creation of such industrial atmosphere and environment, which would provide additional permanent source of employment to the unemployed in he State of Jammu and Kashmir,
A combined reading of the provisions of sub sec. 7 of sec. 80-IA and sec. 80AB would suggest that (a) the Profits and gains of an eligible business, to which the provisions of sec. 80-IA(1) shall apply, shall be restricted to the amount of income of that nature that is included in the Gross total income and
The issue before us is whether the interest paid on sales tax under the amnesty scheme is an allowable deduction as business expenditure. The law is well settled that the interest paid on sales tax is not of penal in nature and is therefore allowable as business expenditure. Therefore, in our opinion the interest on sales tax is an allowable business expenditure.
If anything is assessed in the year under consideration that cannot be again assessed in any other year and this will be applicable in either condition. If any amount is not assessed in the year under consideration then that part of income will be assessable in relevant year and if something is assessed in the year under consideration that cannot be assessed in any other year.
Assessee has filed the details of apportionment of the expenses based on the percentage of gross sales of the Indian branch to total gross sales by the U.K. company. The assessee has also filed financial statements to show that the U.K. company has shown executive or general administration expenditure as indicated in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Explanation (iv) to section 44C separately
