Payment has been made for architectural consultancy in connection with forging shed, lab construction and site visits. Thus the services were clearly linked towards activity in capital field. Even the consultants bill has been made. by narrating that ‘assuming total cost of civil works 20 lacs @ 3% = Rs. 60,000/-. On this amount service tax has been added. Thus we find that authorities below are correct in holding that this expenditure falls in the capital field. Excise duty and sales tax cannot form part of the turnover for the purposes of section 80HHC. Section 80HHC is governed by section 80AB and unabsorbed losses of earlier years u/s 72 have to be set off in computing eligible profits for the purposes of section 80HHC.
The law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case as to the meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature
Recently, the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Cheminova India Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (ITA No. 4865/Mum/05) [13 ITAT INDIA 240 (Mum)]., accepted higher price paid to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) (as compared to unrelated parties) under Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method to be the arm’s length price (ALP) based on the economic and commercial justification.
Bangalore bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT v. K. Mohan & Co.(Exports) (P.) Ltd [2010] 130 TTJ 719 (Bang) held that that profits earned from forward contracts cannot be included in the profits of the business of the undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(the Act) .
The Delhi bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of DDIT v. Virage Logic International (ITA No. 494(Del) 2010) held that transfer of a computer software by an Indian branch of a foreign company [approved as 100 percent Export Oriented Unit (EOU) by Software Technology Parks of India (STPI)] to its head office is a transaction eligible for claiming tax benefits under section 1 0A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
In the case of Vikas Road Carriers Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-417-ITAT-MUM] the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), ruled that, in light of the very typical facts of the case, no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for non-withholding of tax since the payments to the transporters were less than Rs. 20,000 each, and less than Rs. 50,000 in a year to any party and hence did not attract the withholding tax provisions of section 194C of the Act. The Tribunal relied very heavily on the fact that while the assessee had given details of expenses incurred, the revenue authorities were unable to dispute the assessee’s statement that the expenses in question did not exceed the limit of Rs. 20,000 per payment, and Rs. 50,000 per payee per year.
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT Vs M/s Toshiba India Private Limited (2010-TII-14-ITAT-DEL-TP) has rejected the Assessing Officer’s approach of cherry picking the comparables and proposing an arbitrary Transfer Pricing adjustment.
In the event the assessee claims that he has not purchased the property, as revealed in the AIR, before the ld.AO, then, it would be proper for the ld.AO to obtain the Sale Deed from the Sub Registrar’s office to prove the revenue’s claim. Assessment order based only on the AIR report will not stand in the eye of law.
The Tribunal held that mere existence of subsidiary does not by itself constitute the subsidiary company a PE of the parent company. The main condition for constitution of PE is carrying on of business in India. However, no operations in respect of the manufacture and sale of parts and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) kits to subsidiary was carried out by the taxpayer in India.
M/s Frick India Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – There was a composite agreement titled as ‘intellectual property license and non compete agreement’ vide which several valuable rights including the right to use the trademark, technical know-how including right to export to 30 countries have been granted over a long period of ten years to the assessee, which gave rise to a benefit of enduring nature. However, the AO has allowed the same as revenue expenditure without application of mind and without keeping in view the stand taken in earlier years by the AO which was also confirmed by the CIT(A) on the very same facts.
