DCIT v. Cabot India Ltd. – At the outset the Tribunal stated that the issue to be adjudicated upon is whether or not the royalty rate of five percent is arm’s length, and not whether the increase vis-à-vis two percent is justifiable. The Tribunal ruled that the royalty of two percent paid by the assessee to its AE in the previous year was a ‘controlled’ transaction and hence, could not be taken as a benchmark for determining the arm’s length nature of the five percent royalty charge in the current year.
Brintons Carpets Asia Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Pune) – The AO has to maintain the rule of consistency unless there is change facts materially. Comparable cases accepted by the department in the subsequent assessment year should be adopted for the purpose of computing the transfer pricing adjustments for the current year also. Ld Counsel also narrated the facts of that case and stated that the AO/TPO initially picked up the domestic comparable cases in that case too as in the case of the present assessee and such a decision was not accepted by the Tribunal vide the cited order dated 23.2.2011.
Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) -Since the taxpayer had applied filters in its TP report to reject persistent loss makers, the Tribunal questioned the basis of the taxpayer’s contention that other loss making comparables should not be rejected. Merely because a company is incurring losses, it would not lose its status as a comparable. Declaration of loss is an incidental of business which is at par with the profit.
Tech Mahindra Limited v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai ) -ITAT held that the arm’s length price in case of interest on extended credit period allowed to an Associated Enterprise (AE) based in USA shall be determined on the basis of USD London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) instead of applying the rate of interest pertaining to EURO denominated loan charged to AE based in Germany since the AE was based in USA.
Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool Vs. DCIT (ITAT Vizag)- Since the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is exercising judicial functions, it is now settled that it has all powers of Court, i.e. it can issue summons and exercise all the powers vested in the Income tax authorities under section 131 of the Income tax Act. Hence any proceeding before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings.
ITO v. Bhavesh Prints (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Ahemdabad)- In the present case the finding given by the Assessing Officer is that certain parties are not traceable or that such amount is not outstanding in the books of these parties against the assessee. It would mean according to ld. DR that liability has ceased to exist. But this is not the event which has taken place during this year nor is visualized in section 41(1).
Fulford (India) Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The Tribunal made specific reference to the noting of the DRP in its order viz., that the assessee may be justified in claiming that own researched medicine should fetch higher profit margin, may be justifiable arguments, but the same had to be supported by adequate fact and each and every medicine had to be shown with respect to back-up research and development to justify the profit margin.
ITO v. Parag Mahasukhlal Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad) If a payment is compensatory in nature and not related to any deposit/debt/loan, then such a payment is out of the ambits of the provisions of section 194A of the Income-tax Act. To buttress this legal proposition, we hereby placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra), wherein the question was the admissibility of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act in respect of interest received from trade debtors.
Yahoo India P. Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Payment made by assessee-company to Yahoo, a Hong Kong company, for hiring its services for uploading and display of banner advertisement of Department of Tourism of India on its portal was not in nature of royalty within meaning of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). meaning of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi).
DCIT v. Golflink Software Park P Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) – The taxpayer was not only letting out its building for rent, but also carried on a complex commercial activity of setting up a software technology park in which various amenities and fit-outs have been provided. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision of CIT v. National Storage Pvt Ltd [1967] 66 ITR 596 (SC).
