Here in this case, it is not disputed fact that the assessee is sharing staff, office premises, etc. with its parent company. The allocation of the expenses have been identified as per the memorandum of understanding with regard to nature and the quantum of expenses which were to be borne out by the parent company and to be reimbursed by the assessee. Nowhere the Assessing Officer has spelled out as what were the expenses, which have been reimbursed are unreasonable or excessive looking to the fair market value of the services and expenses reimbursed.
Expenses incurred by the assessee on the foreign tour of spouses of the Directors were wholly gratuitous and for a purpose outside the course of its business. As the incurred expenditure was for extra-commercial reasons, so, same is not deductible under section 37(1) of the Act.
We find force in the submission of the learned counsel that payments to the government are to be paid once the mining lease is obtained and such payments are governed by various Acts along with the Apex Court making a ruling for State Governments to participate in the granting of mining lease by recovering compensation when their forests are uprooted. Therefore for this purpose, the funds are used for a natural regeneration which the assessee participates indirectly. Therefore at no point of time could it be said that the assessee had incurred a capital expenditure giving the assessee a benefit of enduring nature for the purpose of earning segmented income to render the same to income tax. In other words, the authorities below have not pointed out the income generated against the purported deferred Revenue expenditure so proposed by them in their impugned orders. The amount was incurred as a Revenue expenditure and is directed tobe allowed in the year it has been incurred
. Facts in brief are that the assessee during the assessment year 2007- 08 had provided software programming services to the parent company in the US for which the assessee had received a sum of Rs.5,39,40,81,065/-. Since the assessee had entered into an international transaction with an associate enterprise, the income arising from such transaction in view of the provisions of section 92C has to be computed having regard to arm’s length price. Section
From the above second proviso to Section 92C(2), it is evident that if the variation between the arm’s length price and the price at which international transaction was actually undertaken does not exceed the specified percentage, then only the price at which the international transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed to be arm’s length price. Thus, the benefit of tolerance margin would be available only if the variation is within the tolerance margin. Once the variation exceeded the tolerance margin, then there would be no benefit even up to tolerance margin. Then, the ALP as worked out under Section 92C(1) shall be taken as ALP without any benefit of tolerance margin.
The facts of the case are that the assessee is a jeweller and it is in this business for the last number of years. There was a search at the assessee’s premises by the DRI on 13th Feb., 1993 in which they found that the assessee had purchased silver weighing 1,913.295 kgs. and the same was seized. The stand of the assessee was that it had purchased silver of 194.25 kgs. from M/s Dilipkumar Hirachand, Jalgaon and the balance 1,713.80 kgs. through the agent in Mumbai who arranged the purchases of this quantity from 18 NRIs who had brought it from Middle-East countries. The DRI did not accept the contention of the assessee and seized the entire silver on the contention that the assessee did not prove that it was a legal purchase.
Voluntarily means out of free will without any compulsion. When the assessee concealed incriminating material in the form of transactions in the aforesaid account of the two parties, surrender cannot held to be voluntarily. Surrender of income after the department has collected incriminating material with regard to the income so disclosed, cannot be voluntary surrender, because it was made under the constraint of exposure to adverse action by the Department.
With this amplification of the scope of the power of the DRP, now even the matters not agitated by the assessee before the DRP can also be considered for the purposes of enhancement.
Mere mistake in making of a claim in the return of income would not ipso facto reflect concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The wrong claim of depreciation in the present case cannot be said to be made with an intention to evade taxes in as much as even after the disallowance of depreciation, the resultant income of the assessee remains a loss. In fact, the assessee had pointed out before the Assessing Officer that it has been incurring losses since the year 2003 due to the market forces. Considering the entirety of the circumstances, in our view, the impugned disallowance on account of depreciation is a mistake, and does not invite the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Abacus Distribution wins stay against Rs.8.81 Cr tax demand. Transfer pricing & depreciation issues contested. Next hearing on 8th July 2013.
