Radials International Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- The assessee had made investment under PMS. The profit has not arisen directly from the deposits made, but from the securities purchased from such deposits, which were traded by the portfolio manager on behalf of the assessee. The quantity of share traded is huge as is evident from the list appended with the assessment order. The shares have been traded frequently with a motive to maximize profit and not with a view to hold them as investment. The volume of the transaction is very high. All these facts indicate that the portfolio manager had in fact done trading on behalf of the assessee.
Taurus Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- It was held that the new export-oriented unit of the assessee cannot be said to be formed by the reconstruction or splitting of a business already in existence. The Tribunal has also held that it is not necessary for the assessee to produce its products so as to become eligible for claiming exemption under section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Chadha Finlease Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – At the time of hearing of the appeal, neither the assessee nor any of his authorized representative were present, although, the last notice for hearing the appeal on 11.08.2011 was sent at the address given by the assessee in form no.36. The same has not returned unserved. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed as unadmitted.
ADIT (E) Vs International Goudiya Vedanta Trust (ITAT Delhi)- The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Tiny Tots Education Society (supra) has held that the income of the assessee, being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the Trust and as such, it could not be held that double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing the income for purposes of Section 11 of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow depreciation and reduce the same from the income of the trust for determining the percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the Trust. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is thus upheld.
SRL Ranbaxy Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, no income was found credited to the account of the collection centers. The loss on account of any damage was to be borne by the collection centers. The expenditure on salary/staff of the collection centers was to be borne by the collection centers
Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal field by the revenue as un- admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
DCIT Vs. Shri Deepak Mitta (Delhi HC) – Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal filed by the Revenue is about Rs. 2.89 lacs i.e below the limit of Rs. 3 lakhs stipulated by the CBDT in their instruction no.3/2011 dated 9th February, 2011. instruction dated 9.2.2011 itself clarifies in para 11 that this will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011 and appeal in the instant case has been filed on 12.5.2011 in violation of the said instruction, we have no alternative but to dismiss this appeal of the Revenue, in limines.
Amarpali International Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has adequate interest free funds available with the firm which have been used to make the advances during the year. She claimed that no nexus has been established between the interest bearing fund and advances to sister concerns. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that for making any disallowance in connection with the interest, it is incumbent upon the authorities below to give a finding with regard to the nexus between the interest bearing funds available with the firm and interest free advances made during the year. In our considered opinion, the interest of justice will be served, if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. Assessing Officer shall examine the assessee’s claim that sufficient interest free funds are available to assessee to give advances to the concerns. Accordingly, the issue stands remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer.
M/s Aithent Technologies Pvt Ltd. V/s. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In its Transfer pricing study, the assessee adopted CUP method and justified the interest free loan on the basis that it had sufficient interest free funds. The TPO rejected the claim and computed notional interest at the rate of 14percent, based on certain domestic borrowings of the assessee.. On appeal, the Tribunal observed that the cost incurred by the assessee was not a relevant consideration under the CUP method and held that it was irrelevant whether the loans were advanced out of own funds or out of borrowed funds and whether the interest free loan were commercially expedient for the assessee or not.
ACIT Vs. Afghan Crane Crusher (ITAT Delhi)- Upon assessee’s appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the aforesaid loans were duly recorded in the books of accounts and confirmations of loans were also filed before the Assessing Officer wherein the depositors accepted to have made interest free loans to the assessee. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further observed that the unsecured loans have been raised by the assessee from relatives and friends in the financial year 2004- 05 for obtaining credit limit from banks and the impugned sums do not represent trading liability for invoking provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. In view of the above facts Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the Assessing Officer was legally and factually incorrect in invoking provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and made disallowance of Rs. 13,80,000/-.
