The language in section 55A does not refer the ‘value of consideration’ but only uses the term ‘Fair Market value’. So the scope of the section gets con-fined to determine the fair market value of a capital asset only. Thus, considering the language of section 48 the value so deter¬mined cannot be substituted for ‘Full value of consideration’. – Section 50C states that the AO can refer to DVO u/s. 55A only if the assessee claims that the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeds their fair market value or the value so adopted by stamp valuation authority has not been disputed by any authority, Court or High Court.
Whether adjustment should be restricted only to the international transactions or can be extended to the entire turnover of the taxpayer? 2. Are the books of accounts liable to be rejected if there is a transfer pricing adjustment? 3. Prior to 1.10.2009, is the benefit of standard deduction of-+5% under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act available to the taxpayer?
Whether the interest on income-tax refund is to be considered as interest income falling within Article 11(2) of the tax treaty or as interest income attributable to permanent establishment or fixed base in India falling under Article 11(5) read with Article 7 of the tax treaty? 2. whether the expression ‘attributable’ as used in Article 11(5) of the tax treaty has to be construed as equivalent / narrower to the term ‘effectively connected’ as used under Interest Article in other tax treaties with India and thereby squarely covered by the Special Bench decision of Clough Engineering Ltd.
On applicability of Section 50C of the Act in absence of registered document -Capital gain has to be computed on the basis of sale consideration received or accruing to the taxpayer. Even if the document was not registered, the capital gain has to be computed on the basis of the sale consideration shown and received by the taxpayer unless there was material to show that the sale consideration was understated. In this case, the document was not registered and no stamp duty had been paid. Therefore, stamp duty value cannot be adopted for the purpose of computation of capital gain and the value shown in the agreement has to be adopted as there is no material to show that the taxpayer had understated the sale consideration.
MTV Asia LDC Vs. DCIT ITAT Held that The taxpayer did not provide any documentary evidence to substantiate various expenses incurred as well as no separate books of accounts were maintained for Indian operations. Therefore, application of Rule 10 of the Income-tax Rules 1962 prescribing computation of income on reasonable basis in case of non-resident is justifiable. Copies of tax computations filed with Singapore tax authorities reflect substantial losses to the taxpayer in respect of Global Operations. Therefore, margin applied by the AO are high. The transponder charges and programme charges constitute 95.88% of the revenue.
After 1-4-1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, subject to the provisions of section 36(2) that such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year. As the appellant has shown the amount of Rs.23,00,894/- (claimed as short recoveries or bad debts written off) as its income in assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09, the conditions laid down in the provisions of section 36(1 )(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act have been fulfilled by the appellant. In these circumstances, it is held that the contention of the appellant is correct. The Assessing officer is accordingly directed to delete the addition ofRs.23,00,894/-.
Kirti Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – The remand report submitted by AO does not deny the fact that Mr. Jagdish Beniwal was acting as a coordinator for facilitating the purchase of pieces of lands in Alwar for and on behalf of the assessee. It has also not been denied that assessee did not give advance imprest money to him. Mr. Jagdish Beniwal has accepted that he used to assist assessee and thereafter the assessee was dealing with farmers directly. This does not rule out his role as a coordinator till the conveyances were registered. In his statement he has himself accepted having received an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- from assessee and about the cash disbursement on pertinent question,
ITO Vs. Kuber Chand Sharma, In our considered view, CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence without fulfilling the categorical conditions laid down in Rule 46A, as explained by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd.(supra). Consequently, his order on this issue is not tenable, however, the issue of merits remains. Besides, from the record it emerges that the assessee wanted to file only government records and revenue record about crops. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, the interest of justice will be served if the matter is set aside, restored back to the file of AO to decide the same afresh after affording the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard.
Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – It is not in dispute that assessee company is under liquidation and official liquidator stands already appointed by the order of the Hon’ble Court. As per Companies Act, 1956, no doubt, powers of liquidator which includes the power to defend legal proceedings, civil or criminal are to be in the name and on behalf of the company. Section 178 of the I.T. Act, 1961 recognizes the official liquidator as the concerned person in the case company is under liquidation. Similarly section 2 (7) defines the word assessee. It includes such persons also as assessee who are deemed to be an assessee under any provision of this Act.
Kama Holding Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- Rule 8D has been held to be retrospective in nature and the dis allowance has been worked out by applying Rule 8D. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in subsequent judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Another (2010) 234 CTR (Bom) 1 has held Rule 8D to be prospective in nature. Thus, Rule 8D would not be applicable to the assessment year in question i.e. 2007-08. The Hon’ble High Court, however, has directed that indirect expenses which may be attributable on a reasonably proper basis can only be disallowed.
