In a recent ruling in the case of ACIT v. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TII-30-ITAT–MUM-TP], the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the case in favour of the assessee, accepted various adjustments made while determining arm’s length price, as they had been sufficiently explained and evidenced by the assessee. The Tribunal also ruled that for an asset intensive industry, the appropriate Profit Level Indicator (“PLI”) shall be Profit Before Interest and Tax and not Profit before Depreciation Interest and Tax
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), in the case of ITO v. Zydus Altana Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TI I-29-ITAT–MUM-TP], while deciding the case in favour of the assessee, ruled that the determination of arm’s length price should be based on the functional and asset profile of a company and profit margins earned by comparable companies should be adjusted for functional differences between the tested party and the comparables. The Tribunal also ruled that in case an assessee’s income is exempt from tax (and taxable in the overseas jurisdiction), this factor should be considered by the revenue authorities while undertaking a tax assessment since in such a situation, there is no benefit to the assessee in charging its associated enterprise a lower mark-up.
In a recent ruling in the case of Nimbus Communications Ltd v. ACIT [2010–TI1-21-ITAT-MUM-T9, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), while deciding the case in favour of the assessee, ruled that for determination the of arms’ length price (“ALP”), any one of the methods as prescribed in section 92C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) must be followed. The Tribunal also ruled that levying interest on outstanding trade balances is different from interest charged on loans and cannot be compared.
ADIT (Int. Tax) v. Bank International Indonesia – ITAT held that provision made for doubtful debts will be required to be added back to the net profit as per the profit and loss account while computing the Book Profit for the purpose of determination of Minimum Alternate Tax , subsequent to the amendment to Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , with retrospective effect from 1 April, 2001.
The Tribunal ruling has reiterated the principle of ‘bona fide difference of opinion’ arising in the context of application of most appropriate transfer pricing method. The Tribunal has ruled that any addition to income arising as a result of bona fide difference of opinion cannot be used as a basis for levy of penalty.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in its recent ruling in the case of ACIT v. Vedaris Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd [2010-TII-10-ITAT-DEL-TP] has held that selection of comparable uncontrolled transactions (“comparables”) for determining arm’s length price (“ALP”) should be done with reference to Rule 10C(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”).
This is an important decision of the Tribunal, which brings out the importance of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Treaty), that where thin capitalization rules are not in the domestic law/Treaty, there can be no artificial disallowance of interest paid on borrowings.
In a recent decision in the case of Tecumseh India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2010-TIOL-408-ITAT-DEL-SE3], the Special Bench of Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) has held that non-compete fees inextricably linked with the acquisition of a business constitute capital expenditure.
In a recent ruling’ , the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of McDonald’s (India) Pvt Ltd v. ACIT [ITA No. 3890 (Del) of 2004], has held, on evaluation of available facts, that the old provision of section 92 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not apply in case of advertisement expenditure incurred by the resident assessee on behalf of other resident entity.
No requirement to approach the Tax Officer for nil withholding certificate under section 195(2) where the non-resident is not liable to tax and further no disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 In a recent decision, the Chennai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of VA Tech Wabag Ltd. v. ACIT [2010-TII-109-ITAT-MAD-INTL] held that in a case where the payment for services was not taxable in India under the provisions of a Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (“the tax treaty”), there was no requirement for applying to the tax officer for a nil withholding certificate under section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). It was also held that as section 195 of the Act was not applicable, the amount paid for services could not be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.
