ITO Vs M/s Kailashpati Overseas Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi) – Whether when assessee submits the relevant details in respect of share application money such as PAN Number, confirmation and the bank particulars it can be said that the assessee has discharged its burden and no addition can be made on the basis of investigation averments, and it is incumbent on the AO to prove that averments of investigation wing applies in the case of the assessee-Held-Yes.
Siel Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- The issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 18,49,950/- being amount claimed by the assessee u/s 43B of the IT Act. The assessee was asked to establish the facts from the records and from the bank accounts, but the same was never produced. Assessee contended before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that certificate of CA is sufficient for allowing such deduction. When the factual evidence was again called for, it was stated that the details were related to 10 years old bank record and the same is not readily available. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that assessee has failed to establish the evidence of such payments before the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage and also before him. hence, he sustained the disallowance of Rs. 18,49,950/-.
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.
