Kem Tron Technology (P) Ltd. v CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) – As the assessee’s major sales in international market related to associate enterprise section 93E was applicable and a report in Form 3CEB was duly filed along with the return of income by the assessee. The A.O. invoking the provisions of section 92C(3) of the Act made addition of Rs.19,72,697 by making upward adjustment in international transaction with the associate enterprise on the ground that similarly placed companies had better margins as compared to the assessee company. While doing so, the A.O. took the net profit of the assessee company at (-) 3.21% instead of 3.26% shown by the assessee, excluding the other income of Rs.80,28,677 from net profit declared by the assessee.
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.
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs M/s H.M.T. Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)- There is no specific provision prescribing any limitation for passing the order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
In course of search on July 2, 1996 in the residential premises of one Bijay Kumr Gutgutia, some papers relating to the firm, M/s. Shree Krishna Arvind Hatcheries, along with other books of accounts and a bunch of papers with identification mark BKG/5 were seized.
Faridabad Investment Company Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. In The present case, we are of the firm opinion that there was no scope of rectification in the case on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record as the Assessing Officer even in his rectified order could not find out the actual expenditure for obtaining the dividend and calculated the same on the notional basis which is not permissible.
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeches to quash and set-aside the order dated 10th August, 2010, whereby the Director of Income Tax (CIB) Rajasthan, Jaipur imposed a penalty of 20,200/- rupees on the petitioner.
Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Tribunal emphasised that the essence of a CUP method is a free comparison of the variables in uncontrolled conditions. However, citing practical manifestation, the Tribunal agreed that a comparison of controlled prices may be accepted. This may depend on the facts of the case. Further, the Tribunal stated that the facts in this case did not merit a special reason to rely on comparison based on controlled prices. Hence, the application of the CUP method based on comparison against uncontrolled prices was confirmed by the Tribunal.
Senthamarai Constructions v CIT (High Court of Madras) – Assessee filed the revised return in respect of the first two assessment years and filed the return for the first time for the last of the assessment year only after search in the Managing Partner’s residence, wherein undisclosed cash and investments were found. The conduct of the assessee, hence, assumes significance in coming forward to disclose the income of the firm, which are relatable to the investments made by the Managing Partner.
ACIT v Mansih Dutt (ITAT, Mumbai )- Assessee had utilized the services of dubbing studio Ninety Degrees by using their equipments as well as the artists who were working for Studio Ninety Degrees. The assessee had thus carried out the work of dubbing by engaging services and the same was of the nature of getting work done through a subcontractor. The findings of the CIT(A) in this regard are not in challenge before us. In such circumstances we are of the view that the provisions of section 194C were applicable and the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source at 2 per cent treating the payment as a payment to sub-contractor for carrying out a work.
ACIT v Mehsana District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd(Ahemdabad ITAT)- Once the depreciation allowable under s 32(1) cannot be allowed or partly allowed, the unabsorbed portion of such depreciation automatically becomes the depreciation of the subsequent year, subject to the provisions of s 72(2) and 73(3. The carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, as per s 32(2), is automatic and the assessee is not required to fulfil any condition so as to be entitled to obtain such carry forward.
