In the matter of transfer pricing adjustment, no reasons have been given by the present TPO to reject the method of Cost Plus basis adopted by the assessee and accepted by the Department in earlier year(s).
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ITO vs. Alok Mukherjee that where both the parties not performed terms & conditions of the agreement to sale in prescirbed time and prescribed maneeer, it is breach of contract, so it will not be a transfer of property on the date of such agreement.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case Kurian Ulahannan Moothukuzhiyil vs. ITO that in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. in ITA 160/2015 & ITA 161/2015 dated 26/08/2015, it was held that there is one thing common to both the provisions to Section 40(a) (ia) and Section 201 (1) is that the as long as the payee has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid tax on such income, the Assessee would not be treated as a person in default.
M/s. Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Addl. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) In the present case the matter before the ld. CIT (A) was payment of interest for the A.Y. 2006-07 and also for A.Y. 2008-09. In both the matters, the interest was restricted by the AO to 12%
The Serendipity Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- The assessee has derived its lease rental income under the head from other sources. There is no dispute that the same is covered u/s.56(2)(iii) of the Act.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of M/s Brothers Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the case laws referred by the CIT (A) are squarely distinguishable on the ground that there was a written off either by the assessee or bilaterally
In the case of ACIT Vs. Shri JugalKishore K. Agrawal, ITAT Ahmedabad on the basis of revenue observation and after going thought the case file, held that if there is no nexus between the interest income earned and interest paid, then interest paid cannot be allowed within preview of section 57(iii).
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Balbir Singh vs, ACIT that it is not open for the AO to make addition on estimation basis without verifying that said expenses are genuine or not. Mere fact that payments were made in cash on self made vouchers
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that after the retrospective amendment to the second proviso to section 92C (2) by the Finance Act, 2012, there remains no ambiguity that the benefit of tolerance margin is available only when the variation
ITAT held in ACIT Vs Ms Shyam Basic that if the assessee had made a wrong claim in the return of income but had furnished full particulars in its return of income then it would not amount to concealment if income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
