The Assessing Officer was of the view that the claim of CENVAT irrecoverable does not fall as an expense under any of the above said sections. The Assessing Officer referred to sub-section of sections 36 and 37 at length and was of the view that the claim of the assessee had to be justified either under section 36(1)(iii)/36(2) (bad debts) or section 37(1) of the Act.
Issue is covered by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. 330 ITR 470 (SC) wherein it has been held that interest u/s 234B and 234C shall be payable for failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable u/s 115JA/115JB. Therefore, we hold that learned CIT (A) has rightly decided that interest is leviable u/s 234B in respect of income computed u/s 115JB.
The Assessing Officer allowed the depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals at the rate of 15% as against 60% claimed by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation at the rate of 60% following the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Datacraft India Ltd. – 40 SOT 295 (Mum)(SB).
The provisions of rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules which have been notified with effect from March 24, 2008, shall apply with effect from the assessment year 2008-09; Even prior to the assessment year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the Assessing Officer has to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14A. For that purpose, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act.
Provisions of rule 8D of the Rules which have been notified with effect from March 24, 2008, would apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09. Even prior to assessment year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the AO had to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A. For that purpose, the AO is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act.
Therefore, in view of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision (supra), we, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer not to apply Rule 8D in the present case since the assessment year under appeal is 2005-06 and Rule 8D is applicable only from the assessment year 2008-09.
Honourable ITAT held that income received by a Foreign University under affiliate agreement for providing distance educational courses in India is not taxable as Royalty under the India-USA tax treaty . Accordingly, the taxpayer was not required to withhold taxes while making payments to the foreign university.
Whether conversion of tenancy rights into ownership right falls under the realm of ‘transfer’ as envisaged in section 2(47) of the Act. The assessee was accepted as a tenant by the co-owners and as per the well settled law on this issue the tenancy cannot be equated with the ownership. The ownership is the bundle of rights but rights of the tenants are limited. Admittedly, the assessee’s tenancy was converted into ownership and that can be the subject matter of the capital gain as it is a ‘transfer’ within the meaning of section 2(47) r.w.s. 45 of the I.T. Act.
If TPO does not reject a comparable on the ground of functional incomparability then neither the AO or the revenue can take a plea of functional incomparability of the comparables chosen by the assessee in its TP Study. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee’s operative margin has to be held as within the range of 5% of the arithmetic mean of 18.97% of comparable companies and the same has to be accepted as ALP. For the reasons given above, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the DRP is directed to be deleted.
we are of the view that the principle of mutuality is fully applicable and the interest earned on the fixed deposits with the bank and other institutions is fully covered within the parameters of mutuality. We fully endorse the view taken by CIT(A) in the case of Hill Properties Ltd. ITA No. 6223, 6249/Mum/09, that the principle of mutuality cannot be destroyed simply because the funds were not parked with members but with third parties who are not members of the Society.
