The assessee paid the employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC after the grace period but before the due date for filing the return. The AO disallowed the payment u/s 36(1) (va) and held that s. 43B had no application. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal, HELD deciding in favour of the assessee:
whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non- eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking). The SB held that the amount eligible for tax holiday was specific to each undertaking of the Taxpayer
S. 10 (38) inserted w.e.f. 1.10.2004 provides that long-term capital gains (LTCG) on which security transaction tax (STT) is paid shall not be included in total income. The assessee earned long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 33,01,57,200 on sale of shares after 1.10.2004 in respect of which STT was paid. The LTCG was exempt u/s 10 (38).
The finding of the Tribunal that 12.5% of net ad revenues is arms length price, was not challenged by the Revenue, we uphold the findings of the first appellate authority. Money received from a holding company with whom the assessee does not have any trading or business transaction cannot be considered as trading receipt.
ITAT Ruling: The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot exceed his limitation by following any method to determine the arm’s length price which is not authorized by the Income Tax Act or the Income Tax Rules [CA Computer Associates Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT (2010-TIOL-68-ITAT-MUM)].
The issue before the SB was that, while computing the amounts eligible for tax holiday under the Indian Tax Law (ITL), whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non-eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking)
In respect of AY 2003-04, the assessee had an unit in Chennai which was engaged in software development and whose profits were eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The assessee had another unit in Delhi which was engaged in trading and had suffered a loss. The assessee claimed that it was eligible for a deduction u/s 10A
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and connected, and these appeals were heard together, these are being consolidated and disposed of together by this common order.
We have heard the arguments put forth by both the sides along with the case law relied upon. Having held above that the interest on income-tax refund does not fall under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession’, it remains to be examined as to whether deduction u/s.80P is restricted only to the income falling under this head
The assessee, an Indian company, advanced interest-free loans to its 100% foreign subsidiaries. The subsidiaries used those funds to make investments in other step-down subsidiaries. On the question whether notional interest on the said loans could be assessed in the hands of the assessee under the transfer pricing provisions of Chapter X
