The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Assessee and also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. MKJ Enterprises which held that factoring charges were not interest and as such, provisions of TDS are not applicable.
The assessee company was engaged in the business of real estate development. Vide order of Hon’ble High Court, 19 Group companies engaged in similar business were merged in the assessee company w.e.f 01.04.1999.
It is an admitted fact, in the present case that the Department has failed to supply the assessee the copy of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
ITAT held that CIT(A) had made detailed observations on the remand report of the AO who also in his report had not questioned any of the submissions made by assessee and in fact also had not made any adverse comments on the same.
Assessee had reduced its operating expenses to calculate ratio of operating profit/Total cost which was the base to calculate the value of export of goods in transfer pricing on the basis that it was its first year of operation
Assessee was engaged in the field of providing insurance & Human Resources services to its associated enterprise in UK. The Ld. AO /TPO made an addition to the income of the assessee by comparing the income of the assessee with the income of the comparable companies
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of ITO vs. M/s Factor Power Ltd that Interest Earned on Fund Raised Through Share Capital for installation of thermal power plant , which is been deposited temporarily in bank as fund were lying idle, with a motive to reduce the capital cost of thermal power plant
The ITAT ,Delhi in the case of. ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma concluded that The limitation period of six months and not one year is applicable in case the penalty order is passed by the AO pursuant to confirmation of penalty by the tribunal
AO made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act, however nothing was brought on record on the basis of the comparative analysis to substantiate that the commission paid to the related parties was higher than the commission paid to unrelated parties.
The reopening has basically been done for two reasons – the first one being the alleged difference between Unsecured Loans from Directors in the Balance Sheet and Unsecured Loans from Directors in Audit Report under Form 3CD; and the second one
