The Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Kishori Sharad Gaitonde v ITO (ITA No. 1561/M/09) held that for attracting the provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) a capital gains should arise from the sale of land or building or both. However, since in the present case the taxpayer earned capital gains from the transfer of tenancy right which is not a capital asset, being land or building or both, the Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Act was not applicable to the instant case.
In a recent ruling in the case of ACIT v. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TII-30-ITAT–MUM-TP], the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the case in favour of the assessee, accepted various adjustments made while determining arm’s length price, as they had been sufficiently explained and evidenced by the assessee. The Tribunal also ruled that for an asset intensive industry, the appropriate Profit Level Indicator (“PLI”) shall be Profit Before Interest and Tax and not Profit before Depreciation Interest and Tax
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), in the case of ITO v. Zydus Altana Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TI I-29-ITAT–MUM-TP], while deciding the case in favour of the assessee, ruled that the determination of arm’s length price should be based on the functional and asset profile of a company and profit margins earned by comparable companies should be adjusted for functional differences between the tested party and the comparables. The Tribunal also ruled that in case an assessee’s income is exempt from tax (and taxable in the overseas jurisdiction), this factor should be considered by the revenue authorities while undertaking a tax assessment since in such a situation, there is no benefit to the assessee in charging its associated enterprise a lower mark-up.
In a recent ruling in the case of Nimbus Communications Ltd v. ACIT [2010–TI1-21-ITAT-MUM-T9, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), while deciding the case in favour of the assessee, ruled that for determination the of arms’ length price (“ALP”), any one of the methods as prescribed in section 92C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) must be followed. The Tribunal also ruled that levying interest on outstanding trade balances is different from interest charged on loans and cannot be compared.
ADIT (Int. Tax) v. Bank International Indonesia – ITAT held that provision made for doubtful debts will be required to be added back to the net profit as per the profit and loss account while computing the Book Profit for the purpose of determination of Minimum Alternate Tax , subsequent to the amendment to Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , with retrospective effect from 1 April, 2001.
The Tribunal ruling has reiterated the principle of ‘bona fide difference of opinion’ arising in the context of application of most appropriate transfer pricing method. The Tribunal has ruled that any addition to income arising as a result of bona fide difference of opinion cannot be used as a basis for levy of penalty.
This is an important decision of the Tribunal, which brings out the importance of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Treaty), that where thin capitalization rules are not in the domestic law/Treaty, there can be no artificial disallowance of interest paid on borrowings.
When the assessee is prevented from deducting tax u/s 195, the question of his not performing the obligation under law does not arise and thus he cannot be held a defaulter. The assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default in terms of section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act. This is a case of impossibility of performance and the assessee is released from the obligation and hence the assessee is not an assessee in default.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT v. Monitor India Pvt. Ltd [2010-TII-138-ITAT-MUM-INTL] (Judgment date – 8 October 2010, Assessment Year 1999-2000).held that the taxpayer is under no obligation to approach the Assessing Officer and is entitled to remit monies abroad without deduction of tax at source if it is of the opinion that the remittance was wholly exempt from Indian taxes.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ADIT v. Solid Works Corporation [2010-TII-130-ITAT-MUM-INTL] Judgment date 1 April 2010, Assessment Year 2005-06) held that payment received by the taxpayer for sale of shrink wrapped software is not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the India-USA tax treaty (tax treaty).
