ACIT Vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Accreditation does not allow the accredited product to use, or have a right to use, a trademark, nor any information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience – or, for that purpose, use or right to use of anything falling in any other category of clause (a).
All the com parables have to be compared on similar standards and the assessee cannot be put in a dis-advantageous position, when in the case of other companies adjustments for under utilisation of manpower is given. The assessee should also be given adjustment for under utilisation of its infrastructure. The AO shall consider this fact also while determining the ALP and make the TP adjustments.
Triumph International Finance I Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- the undisclosed income determined in the case of the assessee is not as a result of disallowing any claim of the assesse because the same is not allowable as per the provisions of law but undisclosed income has been determined on the basis of the evidences found during the course of search, which has established the fact that the true nature of transactions have not been recorded by the assessee in the books of account and the same has resulted the undisclosed income.
ADIT Vs TII Team Telecom International Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- In terms of the provisions of Article 12 (3) of the Indo Israel tax treaty, royalty is defined, for the purposes of this tax treaty, as “payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematography films, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience”.
DCIT Vs RBS Equities India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Rejection of most appropriate method selected by the assessee does not mean that assessee carried out transfer pricing study without good faith and due diligence and hence, penalty for concealment of income cannot be sustained.
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)- Service Regulations framed by the appellant Corporation for the terms and conditions of employment and services of their employees carry a statutory force.
Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) – Provision for warranty stood crystallised as soon as the sale was made which a customer would like to be fulfilled within the warranty period and is at the cost of an assessee ‘Goodwill Therefore, the residual amount purported to have been held by the AO as an excess provision cannot be considered as a contingent provision and not an ascertained liability.
Amit Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee made a foreign trip to Roam, Dubai and Kathmandu and claimed expenses at Rs. 1,45,151/-. Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the evidence and also business purposes. Assessee stated that foreign tour was for surveying interiors of foreign hotels and resorts at the request of his client Arneja Creation & Hotels (P) Ltd. who wanted interiors of their hotel project at Darjeeling in similar fashion as those at Kathmandu. Assessee explained that tour to Roam was for the purpose of exploring prospectus of importing special type of Marbles for interior decoration and Dubai was a stop-over en-route to Rome. Assessing Officer in the absence of evidence treated 20% of foreign trip expenses as personal in nature and disallowed a sum of Rs. 29,003/-. We find that none of the authorities below have denied that this is not for the purpose of business. Once it is not denied, the foreign trip expenses cannot be disallowed on ad-hoc basis.
Havells India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- It has been held that where services have been rendered outside India and have been utilised for the purpose of making or earning any income from any source outside India, such payments would fall outside the purview of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and will not be deemed to accrue or arise in India.
ITO Vs Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- There is not dispute that the payment in question made by Assessee to KPMG is in respect of services which otherwise fell within the definition of FTS as given in the Act. The dispute is whether the exceptions mentioned in clause (b) to Sec.9(1)(vii) of the Act would apply so that it can be said that the fees in the nature of FTS has not accrued or arisen to KPMG in India.
