An associate enterprise itself would not to be taken as a comparable since lacking the independent nature of an uncontrolled transaction in forming hallmark of Chapter X of the Act. We thus delete the impugned arms length price adjustment on receivables for this precise reason alone.
Jai Enterprises Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) In the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly, the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees have been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, the ld D/R has referred to the explanation […]
Star Facilities Management Limited VS ITO (ITAT Delhi) he only question to be decided in the grounds raised by the assessee is regarding the allowability of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI if deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act, but, before the due date of filing of return of income u/s […]
Pachouli Wellness Clinic LLP Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is not in dispute that the payments on account of PF/ ESI were made by the assessees after due date prescribed under the respective acts, but before due date of filing of return under the I.T. Act. The Ld. Sr. DR has also not contradicted the […]
Since the issue of benchmarking the international transaction is required to be examined qua both the segments i.e. CSDS and ITES separately and independently for factual analysis of taxpayer’s TP study, the case is remanded back to ld. TPO who shall determine the ALP of international transactions of both the segments independently afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
Starline Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) On perusal of the details filed by the assessee, we note that the assessee has incurred VAT expenses on the deemed import which are eligible to be set off against the VAT output. Thus the finding of the learned principal CIT that there was no VAT input […]
Jagmohan Singh Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees had been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. We find that the issue is squarely […]
Stirred Creative Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We find no merit in the argument of the ld.DR since the explanation as provided in Finance Act, 2021 prescribes that the amendment in both sec.36(va) as well as 43B by inserting corresponding explanation that although impugned PF comes in the form of provision and the […]
The next aspect to be considered is whether the amendment to the provisions to section 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, has to be construed as retrospective and applicable for the period prior to 01.04.2021 also.
Amendment brought in the statute i.e., by Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act amended by inserting Explanation 2 is prospective and not retrospective. Hence, the amended provisions of Section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19 but will apply from assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.
