Voith Siemens Hydro Kraftwerkstechnik GMBH & Co KG Vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)- The Tribunal observed that even though in the contract between the taxpayer and OHPC, the term supervision has been given a specific meaning, the conduct of the taxpayer was not supported by any evidence to demonstrate that it had done any thing other than „supervision‟ as understood in its general meaning.
G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd. v. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)- The receipts for supply of spare parts used in prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils in the turnkey contract are eligible for presumptive taxation under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It may be noted on the facts of the present case, the supply of spare parts was indivisible part of the entire repair/ revamp contract.
M/s Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITT Delhi)- The Tribunal held that payment made to ward off competition, under a covenant of non-compete, was to get established in the market and to acquire the market as per the facts of the case. The payment made was of a capital nature but could not be considered as an asset.
DCIT, Chennai Vs M/s Aban Offshore Ltd (ITAT Chennai) – Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted for deduction of tax @ 1% on subcontract where the sub-contract is entered into to fulfill the conditions of the main contract and the same is not independent to the main contract ?
These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue except for the AY 2004-05 for which the assessee Shri Hitesh S Doshi has filed cross objection against the respective orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04, 04-05 and 06-07.
Transstory (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)- The taxpayer was to pay royalty for only seven years and in respect of certain specified product, the royalty payable by the two group companies in China was for 20 years and it was based on sales of all the products. The only basis of adjustment made by the TPO is variation in rates of royalty paid by the taxpayer vis-a-vis the two group companies in China.
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO, to allow the deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act in respect of the profit of Hyderabad Unit without appreciating the fact that the branch has not carried out any manufacturing activity.
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Kaizen Commercial Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Whether merely because a telecom Company has got licence and has bright future, it can be presumed that contemporaneous value of share, irrespective of its negative net worth on the day when it got licence, is on higher side and hence any addition in the hands of share holder on presumptive basis is tenable – Whether in the absence of any business relations, any addition can be made in the hands of assessee u/s 28(iv).
ADIT v ACM Shipping India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – The taxpayer was wholly or almost wholly securing orders only for ACM UK. The freight invoice issued by the carriers show that the commission was paid by the Indian exporter to the taxpayer directly on behalf of the carriers. Further, the taxpayer was paying 50 percent of the commission earned to ACM UK for their services in getting contract with the ship owners and the customers. There is no evidence to show that the commission paid by the taxpayer was for services rendered outside India.
ACIT v Birla Soft Ltd. (ITAT, Delhi) -It would be wrong to consider different STP units of the taxpayer on a standalone basis, for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis, wherein the services provided by the units are same/similar and to same Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’). Further, Delhi ITAT also observed that current year data of an uncontrolled transaction is to be used for the purpose of comparability, while examining the international transactions with AEs.
