Patni Computer Systems Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) – A continuing debit balance per se, in the account of the associated enterprises, does not amount to an international transaction u/s 92B in respect of which ALP adjustments can be made. U/s 92B(1), the apportionment of cost is permissible only where there exists a ‘mutual agreement or arrangement’ between two or more Associated Enterprises for apportionment of cost incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided to any one or more of such Enterprises. The bare allegation that the AE’s had received ‘specific and identifiable benefits’ is not sufficient to justify apportionment.
Statute makes the amended provision Section 80P(4) inserted by Finance Act, 2006 to be effective from 1.4.2007, which therefore clearly indicates that it is applicable from the Assessment Year 2007-08 onwards. The said provision clearly mandates that the provisions of Section 80P shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank.
Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia vs. ITO (ITAT Rajkot)- HUF is a relative inasmuch as HUF is a collective name given to group consisting of individuals, all of whom are relatives under Explanation to Proviso to section 56(2) of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that the term individual would include a group of individuals, hence, an HUF would be covered by the term individual.
Atul G. Puranik Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee acquired rights in plot in exchange of plot owned by his father, then the market value of the land so received on the date of acquisition will be the cost of acquisition of such land.
Indian Railway Finance Corpn Ltd Vs Addl.CIT (ITAT Delhi) – Whether the lease equalisation charges which represented the recovery of fair value of leased assets are rightly added to the net income as per the profit and loss account while computing the book profits u/s 115JB – Whether the bond issue charges are revenue in nature – Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets which were in its possession and it cannot be denied merely on the ground that the registration formalities were pending – Assessee’s appeal allowed.
ITO Vs. Vijay Bharat Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) -Whether the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source as per the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Act , for the payment of freight charges amounting to 1,32,58,651/- made to the lorry owners and consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were not applicable to such payments. Held, Yes the payments in question were made to lorry/truck owners who merely placed the vehicles at the disposal of the assessee and never involved themselves in the work to be carried out by the assessee for FCI.
DCIT Vs M/s Sapient Corporation Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – It is by now well-settled that if the expenditure incurred by the taxpayer is of revenue nature, the same is entirely deductible even if there accrues an advantage of enduring nature in favour of the taxpayer as a result of the said expenditure. This is because going by the very nature of the expenditure being revenue, it operates in the revenue field leaving the capital field untouched.
Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) – In this case ld CIT(A) had adjudicated upon on all the issues. Therefore, the assessment order has merged in the order of CIT(A). Hence, ld. CIT was debarred to assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The assessment cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely on the basis of a complaint and that too for the purpose of making roving enquiries.
DCIT Vs M/s Mcleod Russel India Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) – Whether FBT is payable even in the absence of any taxable income – Whether provision of section 115-O & 115WA are pari-materia and hence FBT is leviable only to the extent of those expenses which are directly relatable to the Income taxable under the Income Tax Act – Whether when only 40% income of a tea company is chargeable to tax, even FBT liability arises on only 40% of expenses. – Revenue’s appeal allowed.
ITO Vs M/s Kailashpati Overseas Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi) – Whether when assessee submits the relevant details in respect of share application money such as PAN Number, confirmation and the bank particulars it can be said that the assessee has discharged its burden and no addition can be made on the basis of investigation averments, and it is incumbent on the AO to prove that averments of investigation wing applies in the case of the assessee-Held-Yes.
