The other objection taken by the TPO for rejecting CUP method was that there was difference in the dates of comparable transactions. The ld. DR brought to our notice the transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE on 27.11.2004 which was compared by the assessee with transactions entered with Non-AEs on 10.5.2004 & 12.3.2005. It can be observed that the comparison is made by the assessee with the transactions entered into in the same year with Non-AEs.
As regards the year of allowability, the claim has to be allowed on the basis of restatement of the liability on the balance-sheet date as held by the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (supra). Thus the claim of the assessee is allowable. In case there is gain in a year and the assessee has not offered it to tax, the Revenue is free to take action under law. In these years, admittedly there is loss which is allowable as deduction.
In the instant case, the capital asset having become the asset of the previous owner prior to 1-4-1981, the fair market value (FMV) of the same as on 1-4-1981 has been adopted as the deemed cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessee as well, and on which aspect of the matter there is no dispute. How could then, that being the case, the assessee claim further deduction toward the claimed cost in removing the encumbrance or satisfying the condition precedent, i.e., assuming so, subject to which the property stands bequeathed to her? It is, thus, only the cost, where so, as incurred by the previous owner, or that which would stand to have been incurred by him, that would qualify for deduction under section 48(ii).
Read about the ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘B’ ruling in the case of Ms. Noella P. Perry regarding the cost of acquisition and cost inflation index for properties acquired before 1st April 1981. The ruling clarifies the calculation of long-term capital gains and provides guidance on the applicable dates and values.
The assessee has placed reliance on some decisions. However, as afore-stated, the matter is purely factual, i.e., based on primary facts on which inference as to a finding of fact, i.e., the explanation with regard to that nature and source of credit being satisfactory or not, keeping the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case into account, is to be drawn. The decisions cited by the assessee have been with reference to the one of positive inference.
A plausible manner in which WDV of an asset, thus, may be reckoned for the purpose of r. 14 is to reduce the depreciation at the rate as prescribed for the relevant block of the assets, i.e., under which the said asset falls, for the years for which depreciation has actually been allowed since its acquisition (though on the relevant block), to arrive at its’ WDV as at the relevant year-end, and which incidentally brings us to the second aspect of the matter.
Under the Transfer Pricing Regulations, the number of comparables may be one or more than one; but there is no upper limit prescribed u/s 92C of the I T Act. However, the first proviso to se.92(2) indicates that more than one price can be considered for determination of ALP and in such a case, the ALP shall be taken to be arithmetic mean of such price.
The facts of the case are that assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of vacuum insulated tanks, cold convertor systems, atmospheric vaporizers and cryo containers, etc. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative for the Revenue submitted that penalty has been levied on the addition amounting to Rs.5,04,326. He submitted that expenditure was claimed as business expenditure under the head “Staff and labour training expenses” incurred on the sponsorship of advance education of the son of the managing director for higher studies at abroad.
Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption. The deduction under section 10A has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. This is anterior to the application of the provisions of section 72 which deals with the carry forward and set off of business losses. A distinction has been made by the Legislature while incorporating the provisions of Chapter VI-A. Section 80A(1) stipulates that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Chapter, the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U. Section 80B(5) defines for the purposes of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter. Therefore, the deduction under section 10A has to be given at the stage when the profits and gains of business are computed in the first instance.
The dispute is regarding disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under section 14A of the Act. Under the said provisions, the disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income is required to be computed as per Rule 8D. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 have held that Rule 8D is applicable only from assessment year 2008-09 and in respect of prior years, it was held that disallowance had to be made on a reasonable basis after hearing the assessee. In this case, CIT(A) directed the AO to make disallowance as per Rule 8D which is not correct. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for necessary examination in the light of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. (supra) and for passing a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
