DCIT Vs. The United Western Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune) – Section 234D of the Act provides for charging of interest on excess refund granted to the assessee. Section 234D has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.6.2003. Consequently, it is made out by the assessee that the same is applicable only from the assessment year 2004-05 onwards and not in the earlier assessment years and, therefore, no interest under section 234D could be levied for the instant assessment year. The assessment year before us is 1996-97, which is prior to the assessment year 2004-05.
Bindview India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)- In light of Pune bench’s decision in the case of Starent Networks (I) P. Ltd. Pune v. DCIT, the assessee’s claim for +/- 5% in order to compute arm’s length price in terms of erstwhile proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is accepted. Provisions of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10B are quite explicit and provide for analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with the international transaction in question on the basis of the data relating to financial year in which the international transaction sought to be tested has been entered into.
Expenditure can be disallowed only in the event of non-deduction of tax at source, and not in the cases involving short deduction, TDS not required to be deducted on exchange rate difference if TDS already been deducted at the time of credit of amount
Madhukar Vinayak Dhavale Vs. ITO, International taxation (ITAT Pune)- An individual who leaves India as a crew member of an Indian ship will be a non-resident if his stay in India is less than 182 days in the tax year.The assessee has not produced any evidence to support his claim that he stayed outside India for the purpose of employment beyond 158 days.
Admittedly, in the instant case the assessee had purchased the shares outside stock exchange directly from the broker in physical form though D-mat account was opened at a belated date with this explanation that at the time of purchase of shares, he was not having D-mat account and on opening of D-mat account, the shares were transferred.
Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)- The Issue before the tribunal was whether interest paid on income tax due can be set off against interest received on income tax refunds under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Before the Division Bench (DB) of the Pune Tribunal, there was a difference of opinion between the Members and, accordingly, the issue was referred to the Third Member for a majority opinion. The Third Member held that the interest paid and interest received from the Tax Authority cannot be set off against each other and the whole of the interest received is taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)- Service Regulations framed by the appellant Corporation for the terms and conditions of employment and services of their employees carry a statutory force.
ITO Vs Audyogik Tantra Shikshan (ITAT Pune)- The assessee in its Cross Objection, has objected the penalty levied by the A.O with this contention that the A.O has not recorded his satisfaction against the alleged default of filing inaccurate particulars of income as contemplated under the statute in the A.Y. 2004- 05 and has failed to initiate the penalty proceeding during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee also prayed for awarding the cost u/s. 254(2B) of the Act to the assessee.
Brintons Carpets Asia Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Pune) – The AO has to maintain the rule of consistency unless there is change facts materially. Comparable cases accepted by the department in the subsequent assessment year should be adopted for the purpose of computing the transfer pricing adjustments for the current year also. Ld Counsel also narrated the facts of that case and stated that the AO/TPO initially picked up the domestic comparable cases in that case too as in the case of the present assessee and such a decision was not accepted by the Tribunal vide the cited order dated 23.2.2011.
Satara Cattle Feed Industries (P) Ltd. v ACIT (ITAT Pune) – The invocation of s 263 is unjustified if the AO has applied mind to the shortfall in income returned after considering the declaration of additional income during the survey in absence of any material or evidence to show that the reasons which have been accepted by the AO are incorrect or that the same was extraneous or false. Order of the AO must suffer from an incorrect assumption of fact or incorrect application of law so as to be considered as erroneous apart from meeting the requirements of the expression “prejudicial to the interests of Revenue”, to justify the invocation of s 263.
