We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee while filing the return of income in response to the notice u/s 153A declared an additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs and, in alternative, claimed that the disallowance, if any, u/s 10A may be restricted to Rs. 40,24,656/- only instead of Rs. 64,24,656/-. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the issue held that the assessee is entitled to telescoping of Rs. 25 lakhs disclosed as additional income from the income determined by the A.O.
When the assessee reimburses interest payments to parent company for availing loans under its borrowing facility given by the bank, No TDS obligation arises u/s 194A.
In this case Assessing officer has made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) on payment for hiring charges for transponder, paid to PanAmSat Limited on the ground that no tax has been deducted at source by the assessee, u/s. 195 of the Act. Argument of learned Departmental Representative that the amendment to the Finance Act, 2012 changes the position, we find that there is no change in the DTAA between India and USA. Thus, the amendments have no affect on our decision.
Under the mercantile system of accounting, deduction of expenses is allowed when liability to pay such expenses is incurred irrespective of the fact whether such an amount has been paid or remained unpaid at the end of the year. In the like manner, income, under such a method of accounting, is recognized on accrual basis. In other words, only when the assessee finally acquires a right to receive such income, that it is charged to tax. Actual receipt of such amount, whether before or after accrual, is of no consequence.
It is not disputed that the directors of the company have undergone foreign travelling for the purpose of export and looking for the business avenues abroad. The details submitted by the assessee though only provides the date of travelling, details of country visited and amount of fare, visa charges and other miscellaneous expenses incurred, however, the Assessing Officer has not brought anything in record to show that the foreign travelling was for personal purposes. Once the foreign travelling has been accepted for the purpose of business then part of the amount cannot be disallowed on account of personal user unless it is established that there was personal and non business expenditure. Since no basis has been given nor anything adverse has been brought on record, the ad hoc addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- cannot be disallowed. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition is set aside and accordingly, ground of appeal No.2 is allowed.
The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance of interest for the reason that the assessee was already doing its business from a rented premises. The new office premises and godown were stated to have been added in the current year to carry on the same business. It has thus been canvassed that the mandate of proviso to section 36(1)()iii) will not apply.
Notification has permitted the development of the land only for hotel; therefore, after the said notification, the land in question cannot be developed other than hotel and there is no dispute on this point that the land was finally developed by constructing the hotel by the assessee. Even, the MCGB vide its letter dated 10.6.1994 has acknowledged this fact that 50% of the land in question is reserved for recreation ground and the remaining 50% is deleted from the reservation and placed in Local Commercial Zone (C-I) for specific purpose of Hotel projects only.
It is necessary that the assessee or the person concerned liable to deduct and pay the TDS must be responsible for paying to a resident any sum, by way of fees for professional services, fees for technical services, royalty or any sum referred to in clause (va) of sec. 28. Whereas just contrary to the said conditions, in the instant case, the assessee company has not paid even a single penny to its super stockiest. Rather, it is just the opposite. The super stockist is paying to the assessee company for the produce of Drugs.
Transfer Pricing Officer recomputed the expenditure relating to reimbursement of business promotion expenses by Assessee to its associated enterprise based in Cyprus. The TPO had compared the said expense with the average of promotional expenditure incurred by 17 pharmaceutical companies, to compute arm’s length price (ALP) using Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM). The Honourable Mumbai Tribunal held that the TPO had adopted an adhoc method and not TNMM to disallow the said expenses under the guise of Transfer Pricing provisions; hence the addition on account of disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s proposition that only real income should be taxed and noted that these arguments could not be accepted in the context of Chapter X – Special Provisions relating to Avoidance of Tax, of the Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Perot System TSI (India) Limited. The Tribunal observed that RBI’s approval was not sufficient from an Indian transfer pricing perspective as the character and substance of the transaction needs to be judged in order to determine whether the transaction has been done at arm’s length. The Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s contention that the loans granted were commercially expedient and economic circumstances did not warrant the charging of interest.
