Satara Cattle Feed Industries (P) Ltd. v ACIT (ITAT Pune) – The invocation of s 263 is unjustified if the AO has applied mind to the shortfall in income returned after considering the declaration of additional income during the survey in absence of any material or evidence to show that the reasons which have been accepted by the AO are incorrect or that the same was extraneous or false. Order of the AO must suffer from an incorrect assumption of fact or incorrect application of law so as to be considered as erroneous apart from meeting the requirements of the expression “prejudicial to the interests of Revenue”, to justify the invocation of s 263.
Kem Tron Technology (P) Ltd. v CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) – As the assessee’s major sales in international market related to associate enterprise section 93E was applicable and a report in Form 3CEB was duly filed along with the return of income by the assessee. The A.O. invoking the provisions of section 92C(3) of the Act made addition of Rs.19,72,697 by making upward adjustment in international transaction with the associate enterprise on the ground that similarly placed companies had better margins as compared to the assessee company. While doing so, the A.O. took the net profit of the assessee company at (-) 3.21% instead of 3.26% shown by the assessee, excluding the other income of Rs.80,28,677 from net profit declared by the assessee.
HCC-L&T Purulia Joint Venture v JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case we are concerned with A.Y 2006-07 and, therefore, payments by a subcontractor to sub sub-contractor would not be covered under the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Act. We therefore, agree with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source on the part of the assessee in respect of payments made to sub sub-contractors. Therefore, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) is directed to be deleted.
Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Tribunal emphasised that the essence of a CUP method is a free comparison of the variables in uncontrolled conditions. However, citing practical manifestation, the Tribunal agreed that a comparison of controlled prices may be accepted. This may depend on the facts of the case. Further, the Tribunal stated that the facts in this case did not merit a special reason to rely on comparison based on controlled prices. Hence, the application of the CUP method based on comparison against uncontrolled prices was confirmed by the Tribunal.
ACIT v Mansih Dutt (ITAT, Mumbai )- Assessee had utilized the services of dubbing studio Ninety Degrees by using their equipments as well as the artists who were working for Studio Ninety Degrees. The assessee had thus carried out the work of dubbing by engaging services and the same was of the nature of getting work done through a subcontractor. The findings of the CIT(A) in this regard are not in challenge before us. In such circumstances we are of the view that the provisions of section 194C were applicable and the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source at 2 per cent treating the payment as a payment to sub-contractor for carrying out a work.
ACIT v Mehsana District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd(Ahemdabad ITAT)- Once the depreciation allowable under s 32(1) cannot be allowed or partly allowed, the unabsorbed portion of such depreciation automatically becomes the depreciation of the subsequent year, subject to the provisions of s 72(2) and 73(3. The carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, as per s 32(2), is automatic and the assessee is not required to fulfil any condition so as to be entitled to obtain such carry forward.
Bisazza India (P) Ltd. v CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) – We feel the restriction contained in section 80AB or section 80B(5) could not be applied in as much as carry forward of business loss or depreciation should not be first set-off leaving gross total income nil, which disentitles the assessee for deduction under other provisions of Chapter VIA-C which includes section 80HHC also. But assessees’ contention that export profit has to be computed with reference to the profit and loss account prepared under the Companies Act is equally unacceptable because there is no such provision in section 80HHC to determine export profit with reference to Profit and loss account maintained under the Companies Act.
Meredith Traders (P) Ltd. v ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Provisions of s 79 are not applicable to company originally registered as a private company and then became a public company by virtue of the provisions of s 3(iv)(c) of the Companies Act in which public are substantially interested within the meaning of s 2(18) of the Income tax Act, 1961
The assessee-trust registered under section 12A and also approved under section 80G(5) was found to have more then 3/4th of of its total receipt for organizing ‘Bhagwat Katha’; section 80G(5B) limits expenditure on activities of religious nature to 5% of income for year; since expenditure in instant case exceeded 5% and violated section 80G(5B), approval under section 80G was withdrawn with observation that Bhagawat Katha is religious notwithstanding its public character and being open to all castes and religions.
Dy. CIT v Niten Hasmukhbhai Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad)- Since the finding of Ld. CIT(A) that there was no oral or written contract with the assessee and the Roopal Roadways which is confirmed by the clarificatory certificate issued by Roopal Roadways, was not disputed by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us, we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) holding that provision of section 194C(3) of the Act are not applicable in this case and consequently no addition u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made.
