The Hon’ble Tribunal held that all the persons questioned have confirmed that cheques have been handed over to the appellant only as a measure of security for supply of scrap or for the purpose of obtaining the loan, but all of them have denied having obtained any loan from the appellant. The statements given by those people remains uncontroverted.
The Hon’ble Tribunal agreeing to the contentions of the assessee held that regarding GBR, payments made to them were only towards reimbursement of shipment charges and therefore, no tax was deducted at source. Assessee did not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as reimbursement of expenses do not consist the income of the recipient
The Hon’ble Tribunal while relying on the Judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the Assessee’s own case which was having similar facts in which it was observed that the advance was treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) because it was converted as advance in the name of assessee merely through book entries and actually no money
The CIT(A) remanded the matter and according to the remand report cash deposits were not explainable as there was cash in hand. Also, it was came to known that Assessee maintained one more account in Vijaya Bank which was not shown to the Department. Regarding the rental receipts it was observed by the AO
Revenue submitted that there was no change of opinion as contended by assessee and accepted by the Ld.CIT(A) as assessee has not furnished ‘Project Completion Certificate’ nor furnished the complete details of AOP as pointed out by the AO. It was the submission that the original project has started way back in 1996 and therefore
Impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 without considering the explanation offered by the assessee and without applying his mind. The failure of the Ld. CIT, however, does not constitute any legal infirmity to make the order passed by him under section 263 invalid
The expression HUF must be construed in the sense in which it is understood under the Hindu law HUF constitutes all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters.
The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that the company has maintained and submitted separate set of accounts. There was a confusion between the total turnover of the business and total turnover of the undertaking. The Hon’ble Tribunal held that in the proviso to section 10B, there is reference to computation of total income of Undertaking.
Lower authorities have overlooked the principle that the opening balance cannot be disturbed this year. The authorities can only reopen for the earlier year. In another case ACIT Vs. Smt. N. Sasikala (2005) 92 TTJ (Chennai) 119 it was held that If the Department doubted the availability of cash balance, it can go to the concerned assessment year 1990-91
In the present case the Hon’ble Tribunal held that assessee can’t be compared with other companies when they are totally different in functions. Also, the Intellectual property Rights, Brand Value have to be seen while making comparisons under Transfer Pricing.
