ADIT Vs Star Cruise India Travel Services (ITAT Mumbai)- In the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India” but then since no part of the operations was carried out in India, no part of assessee’s income could have been thus taxable in India.
DCIT v. Cabot India Ltd. – At the outset the Tribunal stated that the issue to be adjudicated upon is whether or not the royalty rate of five percent is arm’s length, and not whether the increase vis-à-vis two percent is justifiable. The Tribunal ruled that the royalty of two percent paid by the assessee to its AE in the previous year was a ‘controlled’ transaction and hence, could not be taken as a benchmark for determining the arm’s length nature of the five percent royalty charge in the current year.
Tech Mahindra Limited v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai ) -ITAT held that the arm’s length price in case of interest on extended credit period allowed to an Associated Enterprise (AE) based in USA shall be determined on the basis of USD London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) instead of applying the rate of interest pertaining to EURO denominated loan charged to AE based in Germany since the AE was based in USA.
Fulford (India) Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The Tribunal made specific reference to the noting of the DRP in its order viz., that the assessee may be justified in claiming that own researched medicine should fetch higher profit margin, may be justifiable arguments, but the same had to be supported by adequate fact and each and every medicine had to be shown with respect to back-up research and development to justify the profit margin.
Yahoo India P. Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Payment made by assessee-company to Yahoo, a Hong Kong company, for hiring its services for uploading and display of banner advertisement of Department of Tourism of India on its portal was not in nature of royalty within meaning of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). meaning of clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi).
These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue except for the AY 2004-05 for which the assessee Shri Hitesh S Doshi has filed cross objection against the respective orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04, 04-05 and 06-07.
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO, to allow the deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act in respect of the profit of Hyderabad Unit without appreciating the fact that the branch has not carried out any manufacturing activity.
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Kaizen Commercial Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Whether merely because a telecom Company has got licence and has bright future, it can be presumed that contemporaneous value of share, irrespective of its negative net worth on the day when it got licence, is on higher side and hence any addition in the hands of share holder on presumptive basis is tenable – Whether in the absence of any business relations, any addition can be made in the hands of assessee u/s 28(iv).
ADIT v ACM Shipping India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – The taxpayer was wholly or almost wholly securing orders only for ACM UK. The freight invoice issued by the carriers show that the commission was paid by the Indian exporter to the taxpayer directly on behalf of the carriers. Further, the taxpayer was paying 50 percent of the commission earned to ACM UK for their services in getting contract with the ship owners and the customers. There is no evidence to show that the commission paid by the taxpayer was for services rendered outside India.
HCC-L&T Purulia Joint Venture v JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case we are concerned with A.Y 2006-07 and, therefore, payments by a subcontractor to sub sub-contractor would not be covered under the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Act. We therefore, agree with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source on the part of the assessee in respect of payments made to sub sub-contractors. Therefore, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) is directed to be deleted.
