Giving marketing services outside India, even if we consider it as technical services, nothing was made available to the assessee in the nature of any technical knowledge, experience, skill know-how or processes.
In any case, expert advice obtained by the assessee from Vakharia & Associates lacks credibility and just because the assessee’s claim is supported by a chartered accountant’s opinion, this fact per se cannot absolve the assessee from penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the case of CIT Vs Escort Finance Limited (328 ITR 44), Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rejected assessee’s reliance on expert advice to avoid the penalty
These appeals involving certain common grounds regarding interpretation of section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and claimed for deduction under section 80-IA (4) of the Act. The same are being discussed by us with reference to the facts of the case for assessment year 2004-2005 in the case of Allcargo Global Logistics Ltd.
It is not the case of the assessee, at this stage, that the AO has not given sufficient opportunity; the case of the assessee is that the additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) ought to have been admitted under Rule 46A. If additional evidence is not admitted, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have furnished reasons for non-admission so that the assessee could explain properly as to whether the reasons for non-admission of additional evidence are in accordance with law or not. In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) completely ignored to take notice of the additional evidence.
As regarding the other addition of Rs.34,82,972/- on account of Sundry creditors the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the same by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518 (SC) without going into the facts of the case. In this case the assessee has not filed even the details of the sundry creditors and when the Bench asked for the list of sundry creditors outstanding since several years, the ld. Counsel for assessee has submitted that the books of account relating to A.Yr. 1981-82 are already seized by the revenue and lying with the revenue authorities till now.
The requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof has been read as an integral part of the concept of fair procedure and safeguard to ensure observance of the rule of law. We may point out that a ‘decision’ does not merely mean the ‘conclusion’. It embraces within its fold the reasons forming basis for the conclusion.[Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab,(1995)1SCC 760(SC)].
The monies held in the account must be regarded as being at the joint disposal of Mr and Mrs Pflum which means when the mandate is such that either party can draw on them, that either party is free to withdraw and spend them as he or she wishes. In practice most withdrawals were made by Mrs Pflum without reference to Mr Pflum. Thus when she withdrew sums in the UK using the debit card, the cash so withdrawn would be her own money and she was drawing on an asset which was just as much her own asset as it was Mr Pflum’s. That is the essence of a joint bank account held by the holders as joint tenants. We therefore reject Mrs Teggart’s submission that because the monies were derived from Mr Pflum’s earnings he was to be regarded as not having alienated them, in the absence of clear evidence of an intention to sever the joint tenancy and confer beneficial ownership on Mrs Pflum. The application of this principle also leads to the same conclusion in relation to purchases made through use of the debit card in the UK.
After going through the above provisions of law, it is clear that the Act has not provided for any cut off date up-to which only the information available in public domain has to be taken into consideration by the TPO, while making the transfer pricing adjustments and arriving at arm’s length price. The assessee as well as the Revenue is both bound by the Act and the rules there-under and, therefore, as provided under the Act and rules, they are supposed to be taking into consideration, the contemporaneous data relevant to the previous year in which the transaction has taken place.
It is settled law that if the loan is taken for acquiring the capital asset, waiver thereof would not amount to any income exigible to tax. On the other hand, if this loan was for trading purpose and was treated as such from the very beginning in the books of account, the waiver thereof may result in the income more so when it was transferred to profit and loss account.
DCIT v. Sports Station (India) (P.) Ltd. As is apparent from the impugned order, the Assessing Officer did not bring any material on record for holding that the payment of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum to unsecured creditors was excessive and how interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum was reasonable or represented fair market value for the services and facilities.
