Destination of the World (Subcontinent) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The Tribunal held that in the first instance, the attempt should be made to determine arm’s length price of controlled transactions by comparing the same with internal uncontrolled transactions undertaken in same or similar economic scenario. The Tribunal relied on the following in arriving at this conclusion.
No penalty can be levied under s 271(1)(c) when there was only the CBDT Circular on the taxation of ESOP shares and where the assessee offered certain income in a particular year and paid taxes bona fidely and the AO taxed the same in another year.
Mother son Jones Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)- Since the assessee has already surrendered Rs.30 lacs in the four assessment years, three of which are preceding assessment years and during relevant assessment year, the assessee has disclosed Rs. 6,30,000/-.
Innovative Steals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)- The word “construction” though mainly connected to the building but it includes within its ambit a bridge under construction building, erection, elevation, establishment, assembly, manufacture, fabrication. It also includes an impressive construction structure, building, edifice, assembly, framework. Therefore, its ambit has not been restricted to only to construction of building.
Cosmic Kitchen Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- The only ground taken in this appeal, filed by the assessee, is that the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs. 2,70,744/- in respect of pre-operative expenses allocated to fixed assets. It is also mentioned that he erred in holding that the expenses were revenue in nature and not linked with installation of various assets.
Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) -Since the taxpayer had applied filters in its TP report to reject persistent loss makers, the Tribunal questioned the basis of the taxpayer’s contention that other loss making comparables should not be rejected. Merely because a company is incurring losses, it would not lose its status as a comparable. Declaration of loss is an incidental of business which is at par with the profit.
Voith Siemens Hydro Kraftwerkstechnik GMBH & Co KG Vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)- The Tribunal observed that even though in the contract between the taxpayer and OHPC, the term supervision has been given a specific meaning, the conduct of the taxpayer was not supported by any evidence to demonstrate that it had done any thing other than „supervision‟ as understood in its general meaning.
G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd. v. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)- The receipts for supply of spare parts used in prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils in the turnkey contract are eligible for presumptive taxation under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It may be noted on the facts of the present case, the supply of spare parts was indivisible part of the entire repair/ revamp contract.
M/s Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITT Delhi)- The Tribunal held that payment made to ward off competition, under a covenant of non-compete, was to get established in the market and to acquire the market as per the facts of the case. The payment made was of a capital nature but could not be considered as an asset.
ACIT v Birla Soft Ltd. (ITAT, Delhi) -It would be wrong to consider different STP units of the taxpayer on a standalone basis, for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis, wherein the services provided by the units are same/similar and to same Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’). Further, Delhi ITAT also observed that current year data of an uncontrolled transaction is to be used for the purpose of comparability, while examining the international transactions with AEs.
