Joseph Davaraj Koilpillai Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Deduction on account of bad debt as allowed u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2), after amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987, envisage merely wiring off the debt as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee as a condition for such an allowance. Before the amendment […]
Nabh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) There is no dispute that during previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration the assessee issued 37,500 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for a price of Rs. 200/- each which includes the share premium of Rs. 190/- per share. To substantiate the value of equity […]
Benchmarking of cost to cost reimbursement of expenses was not within the jurisdiction of the TPO while computing the arm’s length price of the international transaction u/s 92CA of the Act.
Approach of the learned transfer pricing officer of determining ALP of international transaction of incurring of higher AMP expenditure cannot be benchmarked either on Bright line test bases or on transactional net margin method unless first it is established that there existed an international transaction. Accordingly all the grounds of the appeal of the assessee relating to the transfer pricing adjustment are allowed.
ITO Vs Ajay Raj (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the notice u/s 143(2) served on wrong address is sustainable in law? ITAT states that, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the address at “85, Kumharon Wali Gali, Village Khampur, Delhi” which was not served on the assessee whereas […]
ITAT states that, in the present case, it is an admitted position that the AO made the addition by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act which are applicable to the expenses considered to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods/services or facilities for which the payment is made.
Once assessee has provided a reasonable explanation about ownership of account, then the onus was on the Assessing Officer to establish that the account belongs to the assessee. The principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial Company Limited wherein, it was held that where prima-facie inference on facts is that the assessee explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue.
The assessee has sold the goods to the Associated Enterprise on principal to principal basis and has received sales consideration. The royalty is payable on the basis of the goods manufactured. Accordingly, addition made by the AO/TPO by determining the arms’ length price of royalty on exports to the Associated enterprise at ‘NIL’ is deleted.
Since there was no material to infer that client code modification had been done by assessee with malafide purpose of shifting of the profit or evasion of the tax hence, assessment could not be reopened under section 147 in absence of any tangible material to infer that income escaped in the case of assessee.
Since assessee association was providing laboratory test services and consultancy services in accordance with its charitable objects, therefore, activities could not be held to be rendered in relation to any trade, commerce or business as such activities were undertaken by assessee association in furtherance of its main objects which were undisputedly of charitable nature and which was not an activity of trade, commerce or business with main object of earning profit. AO was directed to allow exemption under section 11 and 12 with consequent benefits to assessee.
