AO has not made any enquiry with respect to the claim of deduction of the assessee company with respect to provisions for warranty charges, excise duty, sales tax and liquidity damages amounting to Rs.17.72 crores.
It is a fact that the movement of prices of commodities cannot be predicted by anyone with accuracy and hence it is inconceivable or unlikely that the assessee could have made profits consistently, even if it is assumed for a moment that the assessee had actually carried out the transactions for its own benefit.
n this case, it was held that it is not a simple case of deduction of tax at source by applying the rate only as per the provisions of Act, when the benefit of DTAA is available to the recipient. Therefore, the question of applying the rate of 20% as provided u/s 206AA is an issue which requires a long drawn reasoning and finding.
The ITAT Bench Cochin held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s 80 IB(7) if its incomes are derived from eligible business irrespective of the manner in which the entries in the books of account are maintained.
While granting sanction u/s 151 of the I.T Act,1961 for granting sanction for approval of re-assessment proceedings it is necessary for the authorithy to apply his/her mind. Mere affiction of signature along with date cannot be considered as proper approval.
The assessee may not have been successful in getting customers or earning the business income, but if the assessee has done requisite preparations and if the assessee can be said to be in a position to cater to its customers
It is open to a company to buy back its own shares by following the procedure prescribed under section 77A/Section 68 or by following the procedure prescribed under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956, Act.
ITAT Bangalore held in the case of GXS India Technology Center Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that a company which is engaged in development of software products and services cannot be compared to a company which is purely software development services provider.
ITAT Delhi held in the case of Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that both the submission of the assessee is unacceptable. Regarding first submission for not carrying out any transfer pricing adjustment in view of the benefit enjoyed by it u/s 10A is concerned, we find that no exception has carved out by the statute for non-determination of the ALP of an international transaction
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited vs. ACIT that application for further stay is in favour of assessee. The reasons are that firstly, there is no change in the facts and circumstances since the last stay was extended by the Tribunal, and secondly, the major demand which has been raised prima facie appears to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal
