Limitation on deduction of expenses under Section 44D of the Act cannot be invoked if the consideration received by the foreign company is not Fees for Technical Services as defined in India-USA tax treaty
As the issuance of the s. 148 notice and the communication and furnishing of reasons go hand in hand, the reasons have to be supplied to the assessee before the expiry of period of 6 years. If this is not done, the validity of the s. 148 notice cannot be upheld. In any proceeding, whether civil or criminal, a summons issued without a copy of the plaint or complaint has to be construed as if no valid service of notice has been effected upon the defendant or respondents.
The ruling upholds and reiterates the OECD position on pass -through costs that are not incurred for value-added purposes. It will provide clarity and guidance to taxpayers and tax administration alike on the issue of determination of cost base in si
It is undisputed that these three companies have shown supernormal comparable profits as compared to the other comparable. There exclusion from the list of comparable is quite correct. By excluding these three companies from the comparables and showing the computation on the basis of TPO data the arithmetic mean of OP/OC to 17.15% which falls within the +-5% range as permitted by section 92(C)(2). Hence, we find considerable cogency in the arguments of the ld. counsel of the assessee in this regard. We further find that assessee has made voluminous submissions including paper books before the DRP who has passed a very cursory and laconic order without going into the details of the submissions. We find that this is quite contrary to the mandate of section 144C of the IT Act.
The above decision lays down the position that an installation or a structure could become a PE only if it was actually used for exploration or exploitation of natural resources for a period of more than 120 days. The time from its positioning at the
Merely because the assessee is not required to disclose the particulars of sale and purchase of units in audit report obtained under the Companies Act, it cannot be a bona fide reason or an excuse for not disclosing the same in the statement of accounts or any annexure filed along with the return of income for the purpose of determining the total income under the Act
As the funds were mixed, it is not possible to ascertain whether the investment in tax free bonds is out of the assessee’s own funds. The source of investment in the tax free bonds was not identified. The AO did not establish any nexus between the borrowed funds and the investments in the tax free bonds. The cash flow of the assessee was not seen. Therefore, the apportionment on a pro rata basis was improper in the absence of anything brought by the AO to rebut the assessee’s stand that the investment in the tax free bonds had been made out of the funds of own funds (Minda Investments, Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H) and Winsome Textile Industries 319 ITR 204 (P&H) followed);
1. Under the Proviso to s. 92C(2) (pre-amendment w.e.f. 1.10.09) the option to the assessee to choose a price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent is available only where more than one price is determined and not where there is only one comparable instance (Sony India vs. DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Del) & DCIT vs. BASF India not followed. Perot System TSI (India) Ltd 130 TTJ 685 followed); 2. The said Proviso as amended w.e.f 1.10.09 is a substantive provision and not clarificatory and applies only from AY 2009-10 and onwards. Even otherwise, the exception provided in both the provisos of s. 92C(2) with regard to the +/- 5% variation applies only when more than one price is determined. Even under the amended law, the benefit is not available to the assessee if only one price has been determined by applying CUP method. 3. Circular No. 12/2001 dated 23.8.2001 which states that the AO shall not make any adjustment to the ALP determined by the assessee if such price is upto +/- 5% the price determined by the AO is not applicable because the assessee has not “determined” a price but has relied upon the “Agriwatch” data base. Even the AO has relied on the same data base. So, “the price determined by the assessee and the AO is the same” and the Circular is not applicable. There is also no absurdity in this interpretation; 4. The argument that the position should be seen as a whole with respect to all the transactions and not only with respect to the disputed transactions is not acceptable because the assessee has not shown that various purchases were a part of pre-arranged scheme or agreement so as to constitute a part of the indivisible transactions of purchase.
Where the assessee-company entered into non-compete agreement with one party and the same was applicable for 5 years, which period has been considered to be sufficient to give enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure claimed by the assessee in pursuance of non-compete agreement is capital expenditure, the deduction of which cannot be granted to the assessee as revenue expenditure
The AO was of the opinion that when interest accrued on loan was credited in the creditor’s account, the assessee was supposed to deduct tax at source within the meaning of provisions contained in Section 194A of the Act. Since assessee failed to deduct tax at source from the amount of interest credited in the creditor’s account, the AO passed the order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A).
