Cherokee India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Though, the assessee claimed that it has applied a mark-up of 6% on the costs, as per TNMM and should not have been doubted merely because the net result was a loss in the year under consideration. Whether such mark-up can be based on an estimated cost is required to be proved by referring to the agreement whereas the assessee could not furnish the agreement and did not place sufficient proof to support his logic of arriving at “standard cost” and in the absence of proving the same by producing any document/agreement with its principal highlighting the contractual terms of sharing cost, the learned CIT(A) was correct in holding that the special provisions of the Act have to be construed strictly and the method adopted by the tax authorities for making transfer pricing adjustments is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
ITO Vs Basic Chemicals & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- There is a wide variation between value of TDR and value of fully constructed industrial building and the two values are not comparable. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A), the AO’s letter dt. 18.12.2008 shows that while examining the AIR transaction of . two crores, the AO has mixed up the AIR transaction of two crores with purchase of TDR of Rs. 1,43,04,413/- and consequently made erroneous conclusion that there is undisclosed investment within the meaning of Sec. 69B.
ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Bajaj Auto Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- From the language of section 205 of the Act, it is clear that the bar operates as soon as it is established that the tax has been deducted at source and it is wholly irrelevant as to whether the tax deducted at source is paid to the credit of the Central Government of not and whether the TDS certificate in Form No. 16 has been issued or not. Also the mere fact that the employer may not issue the TDS certificate to the employee does not mean that the liability of the employer ceases. The liability to pay income-tax if deducted at source is upon the employer.
Ahuja Platinum Properties Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The availability of interest free funds as given in the earlier part of this order is not in dispute. The Assessing Officer has proceeded on the assumption that the assessee did not establish the nexus between the interest free funds available with the assessee and interest free loans given to the sister concern. In this regard we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) had an occasion to examine the question with regard to disallowance of interest, where the assessee is in possession of both interest free funds as well as borrowed funds on which interest was paid by the assessee.
ACIT Vs M/s Aftek Infosys Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee’ s business is that of computer software services and products development. In order to supply software to its customers as per their requirements, the assessee has necessarily to incur certain expenses which go in making the product customised. When the sale proceeds are considered as revenue receipt, there is no reason for taking such expenses as not revenue because of the fact that there is no enduring benefit to the assessee by incurring such expenses.
CIT Vs Savita N. Mandhana (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no dispute that the assessee has already included entire consideration for sale of shares, including what could be attributed to non compete obligations, as capital gains. In this view of the matter, the exercise of bifurcation between consideration attributable to sale of shares and for non compete obligations is rendered academic and infructuous.
Ramesh D. Tainwala (ITAT Mumbai)- For proviso(i) to Sec.28(va)(a) to apply there must be transfer of the right to carry on any business. The Assessee in the present case was not carrying on any business on his own but was the promoter and director of the company whose shares were purchased by the Acquirer
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – Whether the CIT(A) was justified in declaring long term capital loss of Rs.22,21,85,693/- on account of reduction in paid up equity share capital – the loss arising on account of reduction in share capital cannot be subjected to provisions of sec.45 r.w.s. 48 and, accordingly, such loss is not allowable as capital loss. At best such loss can be described as notional loss and it is settled principle that no notional loss or income can be subjected to the provisions of the I.T.Act.
Shri Homi K. Bhabha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Ordinarily neither the assessee nor the Revenue can be allowed to re argue the same issue over and over again, when it has already been decided by a coordinate bench of the tribunal.
ADIT (International Taxation)-3(1) Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- The issue in this appeals is with reference to the capital gains arising to various persons of Indian origin or non-resident Indians residing in UAE, who are clients of the Bank. These clients have invested in Government of India T-Bills, which has a tenure of 364 days. The T-Bills are also transferable before maturity. The clients purchased and sold these T-Bills during the year for which Bank, according to the guidelines of the RBI has opened a second subsidiary general ledger in their own name on behalf of their constituents/investors as required by the guidelines.
