M/s. Perfetti India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Considering all the aspects and principle of consistency propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Swami Satsand vs. ITO reported in 193 ITR 321, we are of the opinion that loss suffered by the assessee on account of exchange rate fluctuation is allowable expenditure in this year also. The assessee may not be able to produce evidence of the utilisation of the capital before the AO but from the orders of the AO in earlier years and in subsequent years impliedly, it is ascertainable that it is used for the working capital which is in a revenue account.
ITO V. M/s Elka Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd. ( ITAT Delhi) – The issue is whether the promotional expenses incurred by a company engaged in business of cosmetics on ‘Testers’, and ‘merchant display’ which were supplied free of cost to the retailers are capital in nature merely because it also promotes goodwill of the company. It was held that nature of expenditure incurred in the assessee’s line of business is absolutely essential for the day to day conduct of the business of the assessee-company and the same is allowable as revenue expenditure.
The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Tianjin Tianshi India Private Limited v. ITO, held that existence of actual cross border transaction and motive to shift profits outside India or evade taxes in India are not necessary pre conditions for Transfer Pricing (TP) provisions to apply.
DCIT vs. Nalwa Investments Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- Though the computation of s. 14A disallowance was not made, the figures of dividend and interest were stated in the P&L A/c. Even the tax auditors did not state that s. 14A disallowance should be made. As there is no allegation by the AO that there was collusion between the auditor and the assessee to ignore s. 14A, it cannot be said that the explanation was not bona fide. Further, as Rule 8D was not enacted at the time, segregation of expenditure relatable to tax-free income would be disputable and lead to bona fide difference in opinion. So, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
Recently in the case of ACIT v. Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 1605 (Del) of 2010], the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, held that payments made to non-resident freight forwarders are not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the payer is not liable to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act. Consequently, there is no question of disallowance of the amounts paid to non-resident freight forwarders under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.
DCIT v. Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Delhi Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for business promotion and advertisement based on commercial expediency should not be considered for disallowances even if it incidentally benefits the other party. This judgement is in line with the judgement of Nestle India Ltd Vs DCIT. However, in this case, the Tribunal has not considered when the taxpayer is mandatorily required to use the trademark of the JV partner and creation of marketing intangibles.
Delhi ITAT in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [I.T.A. Nos. 4008, 4114 & 4994(Del)/2010] held that deduction in respect of expenses incurred pursuant to a Voluntary Retirement Scheme can be claimed under section 35DDA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even if the scheme is not in accordance with the guidelines prescribed under section10 (10C) of the Act read with Rule 2BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
M/s J.K. Aluminium Co vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of aluminum wire rods at IGP, SIDCO, Phase-II Samba, Jammu & Kashmir. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed computation of taxable income wherein deduction u/s 80IB amounting to Rs 5,85,84,089/- was claimed. The A.O went through the details and found that the assessee had received excise duty refund of Rs 5,68,41,800/- during the financial year. The A.O by applying ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT 225 CTR 233 and the decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of M/s Shree Balaji Alloys vs. ITO in ITA No.255/Asr/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 did not accept the assessee’ s claim for relief u/s 80IB of the Act in relation thereto. When this was proposed to the assessee, the assessee furnished a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 317 ITR 353 wherein this issue has been claimed to have been decided in its favour. The A.O, however, taking support from the decision of the Supreme Court, went on to disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of this excise duty refund. On Appeal Honorable ITAT Allow the claim of the Assessee relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd.
Sapient Corporation Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – When loss making companies have been taken out from the list of comparables by the TPO, Zenith Infotech Ltd. which showed super profits should also be excluded. The fact that assessee has himself included in the list of comparables, initially cannot act of estoppel particularly in light of the fact that the AO had only chosen the companies which are showing profits and had rejected the other companies which showed loss (Quark System vs. DCIT 38 SOT 307 (SB) followed).
ACIT vs. Clough Engineering Ltd (ITAT Delhi – Special Bench)- Under Article 11(4) of the DTAA, interest from indebtedness “effectively connected” with a PE of the recipient is taxable under Article 7 and not under Article 11. Though the interest was connected with the PE in the sense that it has arisen on account of TDS from the receipts of the PE, it was not “effectively connected” with the PE either on the basis of asset-test or activity-test. The payment of tax was the responsibility of the foreign company and the fact that it was discharged by way of TDS did not establish effective connection of the indebtedness with the PE. In order to be “effectively connected”, it is not necessary that the interest income has to be necessarily business income in nature. Even interest assessable under “other sources” can qualify.
