Raytheon Company v Dy CIT (ITAT Delhi) – In a turnkey contract, in which the assessee was under an obligation to supply the equipment and software as well as install them, the profit should be taxed on the completion of each milestone or at the time of handing over the functioning system to the contracting party. The supply of the equipment and software constituted a milestone in the contract and the income therefrom arose in the year of shipment, which was in a previous year.
ACIT v Headstrong Services India Pvt Ltd ITAT has held that The assessee company is registered as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) for manufacture and export of computer software for export purposes. The assessee being eligible for 100% tax holiday u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has exercised this option not to claim this exemption for this year in accordance with provision of sub Section 7 to Section 10A of the Act.
Land Development vs ITO: ITAT Delhi dismisses Revenue’s appeal on deemed dividend, upholding CIT(A)’s order vacating demand for FY 2005-06 & 2007-08.
Just because of vouchers being doubted by the AO and not coming to correct conclusions on them, as he has resorted to only arbitrations in so far as he has presumed the rates of loading and unloading charges without bringing any material on record in support of them. The ld.AR has sufficiently clarified that fluctuation in cartage is always involved due to time factor, urgency of material, varying waiting time in process for labour which has to be necessarily paid accordingly. It is not the straight-jacket or fixed rate on which any freight or cartage is to be paid according to the assessee’s whims or the AO’s whims. It is determined by the market fluctuations and contingencies. Therefore, the AO was not justified when all the expenses were fully supported by vouchers and other relevant details and evidences. The addition has been worked purely on assumptions and presumptions and surmises. Therefore both on law and facts, the addition of Rs.8,87,257/- has no merits and stands deleted. ACIT, Faridabad Vs M/s Presco Mec Autocomp Pvt Ltd
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs Addl.CIT (ITAT Delhi)- Whether proportionate deduction under section 80IA is permissible where major amount of profits is attributable to new setup and meagre amount is attributable to old set up in view of the amended provisions of of clause (iv)(c) of 80-IA and 80IA(4)(ii) – Whether quantum of deduction under section 80IA is directly proportional to the profits of the undertaking and hence it has nothing to do with investment made in plant and machinery – Case remanded.
ITAT Delhi has recently pronounced its ruling in the case of ST Microelectronics Private Limited v. CIT(A), wherein it upheld the revenue’s rejection of transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the taxpayer since the taxpayer had improperly characterized itself as a low-risk software service provider and accordingly, selected wrong comparables for the transfer pricing analysis. Besides, the decision also reiterates that it is a mandatory requirement of Rule 10B(4) of the Income-tax Rules 1962 [“the Rules”] to use current year data for comparability analysis.
DCIT, Haldwani Vs Shri Om Prakash Bhargava (ITAT Delhi) – Assessing Officer estimated the income on the basis of general information from Chief Agriculture Officer which was never confronted with assessee. Further such general information was with respect of earning from grain crop. But assessee was growing flowers and decorative plants which have been accepted by the revenue in past years. The assessee is holding the land of 24 bighas. Income of Rs.4,26,000/- have been accepted in the immediate preceding year, i.e. 2004-05. In this year, income from agriculture is only Rs.2,50,000/-. Considering all these relevant facts and the pleadings of the assessee, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly accepted the claim of the assessee and we sustain the same on the issue.
Pushpsons International Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – The agreement to serve has not been placed on record and its terms have not been paraphrased in any submission. Further, it has not been shown that the understanding, if any, came to an end only when he became a partner and not when he left India. Factually, no service has been rendered to the assessee in the period of absence for education. Therefore, it is held that the disallowance of Rs. 36,000/- was rightly made.
Convergys India Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, we note that gain is not on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange relating to assessee’s export activities. The same is with respect to the external commercial borrowings. This cannot be termed as derived from the export activity of the assessee. The assessee’s reliance in this regard on section 10A(4) does not come to its rescue, as the said sub-section only provides the formula for computing profits derived from the export activity. First, the income or gain has to be derived from export activity, only then the computation formula can be applied.
Merck Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Provisions of sec. 94 are very much clear and it cannot be said that there is any ambiguity in the provisions and therefore, appellant should not have claimed the aforesaid loss knowing fully well that the provisions of sec. 94 are applicable to such transactions. Appellant has adjusted the aforesaid loss against the profit on sale of short term capital gains which is illegal. Appellant being a reputed company, advised by reputed and learned counsels for the past many years cannot be said to be not aware of the said provisions of the Act. For the above reasons, appellant’s submissions on this issue are rejected and it is held that AO is right in levying penalty u/s 271(1) and holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
