The above ruling lays down that the amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve and credited to the Profit & Loss account cannot be reduced from book profit if such amount had not increased the book profit at the time of creation of reserve.
So far as the disallowance of administrative expenditure is concerned, we feel considering the fact that there is no precise formula for proportionate disallowance, no disallowance is called for, for proportionate administrative cost attributable to earning of tax free income until Rule 8D came into force. We, therefore, dispose of the appeals by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority on this issue and remand all the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for reworking disallowance under Section 14A in the case of each assessee for each assessment year. The proportionate disallowance under Section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D from 2007-2008 onwards.
In Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd., reported in 2009 (236) ELT 417 (SC), the Supreme Court approved this decision in M.M. Thomas (supra) and said that the High Court possesses all powers in order to correct the errors apparent on the face of record. In D.N. Singh Vs. CIT, reported in (2010) 325 ITR 349, the full bench of Patna High Court held High Court has power to review its order under Section 260A of Income Tax Act. It referred to paragraphs 28 and 29 of the said judgment and held that as laid down in M.M. Thomas and approved in Hongo India (supra), the High Court has the inherent power of review, being a court of plenary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1963 AIR SC 1909 held that power of review inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.
It is undisputed that these three companies have shown supernormal comparable profits as compared to the other comparable. There exclusion from the list of comparable is quite correct. By excluding these three companies from the comparables and showing the computation on the basis of TPO data the arithmetic mean of OP/OC to 17.15% which falls within the +-5% range as permitted by section 92(C)(2). Hence, we find considerable cogency in the arguments of the ld. counsel of the assessee in this regard. We further find that assessee has made voluminous submissions including paper books before the DRP who has passed a very cursory and laconic order without going into the details of the submissions. We find that this is quite contrary to the mandate of section 144C of the IT Act.
It is to be noted here that the claim made by the assessee under section 158-A will not however preclude the Assessing Officer from making an order disposing of the relevant case without awaiting the final decision on the question of law in other case. When the decision on the question of law becomes final, it shall be applied to the relevant case and the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority shall amend the order earlier passed, if necessary in view of the final decision on the question of law in the other case.
The above decision stipulates that levying of interest for default in payment of advance tax was inescapable. Accordingly, provisions of section 234B/234C are applicable also to companies which are required to pay tax on book profits.
The above ruling lays down that restriction under section 80-IA(9) affects the allowability of total deduction from the profits of the eligible undertaking/unit and not the computation of deduction under various provisions under heading „C? of Chapte
The above ruling provides that tax holiday under section 10A would be available to a foreign office, i.e. a branch carrying on-site software development only if it is a liaison office. An independent branch carrying out full -fledged marketing operat
The principles regarding taxability of income from offshore supplies under a turnkey contract undertaken by a foreign company in India have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. The above decision of the Delh
The above decision lays down the position that an installation or a structure could become a PE only if it was actually used for exploration or exploitation of natural resources for a period of more than 120 days. The time from its positioning at the
