Diageo India Private Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- ITAT held that the contractor of bottling unit of the taxpayer and the overseas Diageo group entities are Associated Enterprises (AEs) and transaction entered between them are covered by the provisions of the Indian transfer pricing regulations.
Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The integral tests for a Cost Contribution Arrangement to be considered at arm’s length are: that the services were availed, the costs have been allocated in a reasonable and an impartial manner and there is documentation to demonstrate the receipt of services.
Emersons Process Management India Pvt Ltd. Vs. Add. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The fact that this company was selected as one of the comparables, by assessee himself, in the preceding assessment year cannot be put against the assessee, as whether or not a comparable is to be included must depend on its merits rather than be solely guided by events of an earlier year – particularly when assessee is successfully able to demonstrate that the entity sought to be used as comparable is not engaged in same or materially similar business at least in the present year.
Bharati Shipyard Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – The Finance Act, 2010 has extended the time limit for depositing tax deducted at source by the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act from the earlier lesser time available for compliance.
Mamania Family Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Where scrap has direct nexus with the industrial operations thereby implying that to the extent scrap is in the nature of bye-product of industrial operations, the same would qualify for deduction under section 80IB, since it is not clear as to how the scrap was generated and therefore, in order to verify whether the scrap had direct nexus with the industrial operation or its was scrap of other nature, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for necessary verification.
ABN Amro Securities India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- When anticipated profits on unmatured contracts are held, to be non-taxable, there is no good reason as to why anticipated losses on unmatured contracts can be taken into account while computing business income, we find that there is an inherent fallacy in this approach inasmuch as anticipated losses and anticipated profits are not treated in the same manner in the computation of business profits. These dual standards in recognising anticipated losses and anticipated profits are accepted accounting norms and in the case of Chainrup Sampatram (supra), Honourable Supreme Court has approved this duality in approach.
Gujarat Organics Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules which have been notified with effect from 24 March 2008 shall apply with effect from Assessment Year 2008- 09. Even prior to Assessment Year 2008- 09, when Rule 8D was not applicable, the Assessing Officer has to enforce the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 14A.
Audco India Limited Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Both the conditions as mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of the third proviso to section 80HHC(3) are required to be satisfied for allowing deduction under section 80HHC in respect of DEPB income in cases where the turnover exceeds Rs. 10 crores.
bdul Razzak A Rajkotia Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no material worth the name found at the time of search divulging the undisclosed income earned by the assessee by way of unrecorded sales. Seized material relates to unrecorded sale by the `Compay’ and that too for a period of 18 days from 0 1.04.2003 to 18.04.2003.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s A F Ferguson & Co. (ITAT Mumbai)- The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the instant penalty be also not sustained in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in assessment year 2001-2002. Copy of the said order was placed on record.
