IBM India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Considering the second objection of the AO, namely, that separate books of account have not been maintained for the STP Units, his observation was that the objection of the AO arose on the premise that part of the expenditure which could be related to the exempted income which is not allowable to the assessee by virtue of the provisions contained in section 14A of the Act which could be disguised and allowed to be set off against taxable income and, thus, the assessee would be benefited by paying reduced tax which could have been avoided.
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.
Emami Ltd. Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- Where on the last date of the Financial Year preceding the relevant Assessment Year, the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax, he would be nevertheless asked to pay interest in terms of Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act for default in making payment of tax in advance which was physically impossible.
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.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-assessee under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs.
Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) -Since the taxpayer had applied filters in its TP report to reject persistent loss makers, the Tribunal questioned the basis of the taxpayer’s contention that other loss making comparables should not be rejected. Merely because a company is incurring losses, it would not lose its status as a comparable. Declaration of loss is an incidental of business which is at par with the profit.
ITA No.174 of 2011 has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of ITAT Delhi “C” Bench in ITA No. 2656/Delhi/2008 dated 10.7.2009 for the assessment year 2002-03 raising following substantial questions of law
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.
Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool Vs. DCIT (ITAT Vizag)- Since the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is exercising judicial functions, it is now settled that it has all powers of Court, i.e. it can issue summons and exercise all the powers vested in the Income tax authorities under section 131 of the Income tax Act. Hence any proceeding before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings.
In this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 13-2-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B”, New Delhi (for short ‘the tribunal’) in ITA No. 2299/Del/2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law.
