Where the assessee was not provided with any opportunity of being heard in the matter, the reasons assigned in the order which was “administrative convenience and for co-ordinating effective investigation” also could not be said to be the reasons as envisaged in Section 127(1).
Even if there is any lacuna in the procedure followed by the Assessing Authority while rejecting the objections raised by the assessee against the notices issued under sections 147 and 148(1), it is not as if the assessee is left in lurch and deprived of its right from raising such issue, and it is open to the assessee to challenge the same, even at the time of questioning the final assessment orders.
The fact that the Agent has deducted tax under section 195 will not be a bar to proceed and pass an order under section 163 against the agent
The decision of the High Court would bring some relief to NBFCs. However, given the fact that this is a debatable issue and unless affirmed by the SC, the tax authorities may continue to dispute the issue. This debate arises primarily due to the fact that under the Act, there is a specific provisions under Section 43D of the Income tax Act, 1961 dealing with interest on NPA with respect to specified financial institutions (including banks) which does not include NBFCs.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Arif Akhatar Husssain (ITA No. 541/Mum/2010) held that the provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is applicable to the capital gains arising on transfer of Development Rights by the taxpayer.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of M/s Nimbus Communications Limited vs. ACIT Circle 11(1), Mumbai for Assessment Year 2004-05, ITA No. 659 7/Mum/09 , on transfer pricing issues arising from amount overdue to the Taxpayer from its associate enterprise (“AE”). The tribunal held in favour of the Taxpayer observing that if a commercial transaction was at arms? length, no transfer pricing addition for non-charging of interest on overdue debt was warranted.
During the assessment year 2005-06, the Taxpayer sold fabrics worth INR 66,101,237 to its associated enterprise, M/s Spin International Inc., incorporated in the U.S., and relied on the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (“CUP Method”) to justify the arm’s length nature of such transaction. Upon examination of the Form 3CEB submitted by the Taxpayer, the Assessing Office (“AO”) found that in respect of two qualities of materials, the items were sold to the associated enterprise at much lower price compared to the price charged in comparable uncontrolled transactions entered into by the Taxpayer.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of Monsanto Holdings Private Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Range – 8(2) (Mumbai Bench), ITA No: 9130/Ml/2010 , on transfer pricing issues arising from international transactions entered by the Taxpayer with its Associated enterprises (AEs). The Tribunal ruled in favour of the Revenue stating that Resale Price Method (RPM) cannot be applied based on expected gross margin. Application of RPM is required to be based on examination of audited accounts and consequent computation of actual profit margin.
TPO cannot reject TP method adopted by assessee on the ground that the comparables are wrongly chosen. Further the ALP has to be determined with respect to an international transaction and not at an entity level.
Brief:- The DRP, being an authority created under a statute and conferred with the powers, has the obligation to act as a body living to the expectations which the law mandates. The DRP has to afford adequate opportunity for personal hearing and deal with the issues urged by a speaking order which would reflect cogent reasons. This is apt to say so that no assessee can have any kind of apprehension that the approach to the DRP is perfunctory.
