When parties enter into two separate contracts, one for material and one for labour, the transaction would not be one and indivisible, but would fall into two separate agreements, one of work or service and the other of sale. In such a case, the provisions of section 194C would apply only to the labour contract and not to the materials contract. The supply portion of the contract being for supply of equipment does not require deduction of tax at source. -Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
ITAT Delhi has recently pronounced its ruling in the case of ST Microelectronics Private Limited v. CIT(A), wherein it upheld the revenue’s rejection of transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the taxpayer since the taxpayer had improperly characterized itself as a low-risk software service provider and accordingly, selected wrong comparables for the transfer pricing analysis. Besides, the decision also reiterates that it is a mandatory requirement of Rule 10B(4) of the Income-tax Rules 1962 [“the Rules”] to use current year data for comparability analysis.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bechtel International Inc., USA v. ADIT held that mere inactivity for a limited period does not mean that the taxpayer’s business ceased to exist or that it did not carry on any business at all. Expenditure incurred during the said period of inactivity / lull is allowable even though the taxpayer has not earned any business income.
DCIT, Haldwani Vs Shri Om Prakash Bhargava (ITAT Delhi) – Assessing Officer estimated the income on the basis of general information from Chief Agriculture Officer which was never confronted with assessee. Further such general information was with respect of earning from grain crop. But assessee was growing flowers and decorative plants which have been accepted by the revenue in past years. The assessee is holding the land of 24 bighas. Income of Rs.4,26,000/- have been accepted in the immediate preceding year, i.e. 2004-05. In this year, income from agriculture is only Rs.2,50,000/-. Considering all these relevant facts and the pleadings of the assessee, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly accepted the claim of the assessee and we sustain the same on the issue.
Pushpsons International Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – The agreement to serve has not been placed on record and its terms have not been paraphrased in any submission. Further, it has not been shown that the understanding, if any, came to an end only when he became a partner and not when he left India. Factually, no service has been rendered to the assessee in the period of absence for education. Therefore, it is held that the disallowance of Rs. 36,000/- was rightly made.
Indian Additives Limited Vs The ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Fact that a particular MAM used by the taxpayer cannot be rejected without providing any cogent reasons. Further, the Tribunal has mentioned that if there exist significant amount of purchases from Associates enterprises , the same cannot be included while computing the gross margins under the Resale Price Method [RPM].
ITO, Mumbai Vs GSB Capital Markets Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether where the assessee has considered the amount receivable from debtor as bad debts in the books of account, no disallowance can be made for want of fulfilment of conditions of section 36(2) – Whether where the amount is given to the sister concern by the assessee interest-free out of own funds and for business purposes, no disallowance can be made for interest expenses u/s 40A(2)(a) – Whether the losses of mutual funds are rightly adjusted against the speculation profit on shares in view of explanation to section 73 – Whether where the amount is taken by the assessee under a business transaction, no addition can be made u/s 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
ACIT vs M/s Seaways Shipping Ltd. (ITAT) (ITAT Hyderabad) – Non deduction of TDS by the assessee was resulted in disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a) (ia), that itself cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The assessee has failed to deduct TDS which resulted in disallowance of expenditure; the mistake committed by the assessee was compensated by disallowing the expenditure. Further, the Revenue cannot penalise the assessee by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai -In the instant case, the original order was passed on 22.3.2004 u/s 143(3) of the I T Act and since the reassessment notice was issued for the purpose of adding the arrears of depreciation debited to P&L account and the revaluation reserves credited to P&L account to be reduced while computing book profits and since the order of the CIT relates to non-disallowance of expenditure in respect of exempt income under clause (f) to Explanation(1) of sec 115JB; therefore, in view of the decisions cited above, the period of limitation provided for in 263(2) would commence from the date of original assessment which, in the instant case is 22.3.2004. Since the order of the CIT u/s 263 is dated 30.3.2009, therefore, the same is barred by limitation.
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Axis Electrical Components (I) Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- if adjustments had to be made to the closing stock, in the same token value of purchase/sale of goods and inventory had to be further adjusted to include the amount of tax, duty, cess etc. and even opening stock has to be recomputed in terms of section 145A of the Act, in which event there is no change in the end result and no case was made out by the Assessing Officer to make an addition. Even u/s. 43B of the Act so long as taxes were paid before the due date of filing of return of income addition cannot be made.
