Amit Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee made a foreign trip to Roam, Dubai and Kathmandu and claimed expenses at Rs. 1,45,151/-. Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the evidence and also business purposes. Assessee stated that foreign tour was for surveying interiors of foreign hotels and resorts at the request of his client Arneja Creation & Hotels (P) Ltd. who wanted interiors of their hotel project at Darjeeling in similar fashion as those at Kathmandu. Assessee explained that tour to Roam was for the purpose of exploring prospectus of importing special type of Marbles for interior decoration and Dubai was a stop-over en-route to Rome. Assessing Officer in the absence of evidence treated 20% of foreign trip expenses as personal in nature and disallowed a sum of Rs. 29,003/-. We find that none of the authorities below have denied that this is not for the purpose of business. Once it is not denied, the foreign trip expenses cannot be disallowed on ad-hoc basis.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee has failed to establish that disclosure of additional income in the revised return by way of declaring G. P. rate at 15% as against 6.93% shown in return filed u/s. 153A of the Act was voluntary and in good faith to buy peace with the department. On the other hand, the assessee filed the revised return only after the concealment was detected by the AO and he confronted the assessee with the same. In such circumstances, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Ps.14,61,678/- for concealment of income has rightly been levied by the A.O.
DCIT Vs M/s Mcleod Russel India Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) – Whether FBT is payable even in the absence of any taxable income – Whether provision of section 115-O & 115WA are pari-materia and hence FBT is leviable only to the extent of those expenses which are directly relatable to the Income taxable under the Income Tax Act – Whether when only 40% income of a tea company is chargeable to tax, even FBT liability arises on only 40% of expenses. – Revenue’s appeal allowed.
J L Morison (India) Ltd Vs ACIT (Kolkata ITAT) – It is now settled law that if, while making the assessment, the AO examines the accounts and other details, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income, the ld. C.I.T., while exercising his power under sec. 263 of the Act, is not permitted to substitute his own view about the computation of income in place of the income assessed by the A.O., unless the order of the A.O. is patently unsustainable in law.
The only issue in this appeal of the revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of employees’ contribution to ESI & PF by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. For this revenue has raised the following two grounds:
National Engineering Industries Ltd. (the taxpayer) had entered into a License & Technical Assistance agreement with Brenco Inc., USA on 19th August, 2002 which expired on 25th June, 2007. Under the agreement the taxpayer was required to pay a certain amount as royalty to Brenco Inc.
During the assessment year 2005-06, the Taxpayer sold fabrics worth INR 66,101,237 to its associated enterprise, M/s Spin International Inc., incorporated in the U.S., and relied on the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (“CUP Method”) to justify the arm’s length nature of such transaction. Upon examination of the Form 3CEB submitted by the Taxpayer, the Assessing Office (“AO”) found that in respect of two qualities of materials, the items were sold to the associated enterprise at much lower price compared to the price charged in comparable uncontrolled transactions entered into by the Taxpayer.
The assessee is not entitled to adjustment of 5 per cent as stipulated u/s 92C(2), where only one of the several methods specified u/s 92C(1) is applied by the assessee to determine the arm’s length price
The argument that “controlling interest” was transferred with the shares was not acceptable as the share purchase agreement had been signed by the Power of Attorney (“POA”) holder. In the absence of the copy of the same, which would determine whether
Section 43B opens with a non obstante clause which means that it controls the operation of other provisions of the Income-tax Act in that section 43B will have overriding effect notwithstanding other provisions under which a deduction may otherwise be allowable.
