M.L. Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- The notification issued by the CBDT at Serial No. 8, mentions “human resource services” as a notified service eligible for deduction u/s 10A. It was also observed that the Assessee is just processing the potentiality of candidates employable by any software development company and the customised data is prepared for the US Company.
ACIT, New Delhi Vs Indian Farmer Fertilisers Co- op Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- From the tax audit report, we also find that amount of Rs. 13,03,74,047/- has been shown as paid on or before due date for furnishing return of income for the previous year u/s 139(1) of the Act. Form 3CD has been prepared and signed by Rajnish & Associates, CA.
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.
