Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.58 seconds)
M/S. Pricewaterhousecoopers Private ... vs Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata, Kolkata on 12 September, 2018 cites

Shree Madhav Solvextracts (P) Ltd., ... vs Acit, Circle-1, Midnapore, Paschim ... on 31 August, 2017

Order pronounced in the open court 12/09/2018 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद%य) ( या'यक सद%य) (M.Balaganesh) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp, Sr.P.S ITA No.483/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Pricewaterhouse coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Cir-2(2), Kol. Page 23 (दनांकः- 12/09/2018 कोलकाता । आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Chemicals &Plastics India Ltd on 26 February, 2007

21. The assessee's fourth substantive ground challenges the Assessing Officer's action disallowing its claim of ₹10,35,400/- incurred on account of payment made towards subscription to US India Business Counsel "UBIC" n the nature of annual membership fees. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the same for the reason that this payment does not have any link with assessee's business. The assessee's case before us is that it has already filed name, address, date, amount invoice No. and date of invoice details before the lower authorities to prove the actual payment. It pleads during the course of hearing that the payee herein is a renowned non profit orginzation promoting bilateral trade environment between the two countries. The same is projected as wider platform created for successfully contributing its efforts to global economy. Learned counsel terms assessee's annual member-ship payment to be involving commercial consideration for obtaining commercial advantage liability to be treated as revenue expenditure. Case law CIT vs. Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd. 292 ITR 155 (Mad), CIT vs. Co-operative Sugars Ltd. 304 ITR 259 (Ker) and ACIT vs. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. 274 ITR 465 (Raj) is quoted in support. We find no merit in assessee's above submissions. We make it clear that although it has placed on record its only membership detailed followed by actual payment. it is very much imperative to prove the scheme of above counal or its bye-laws vis-à-vis the assessee's relevant business activity. We are of the opinion that mere payment of an amount does not prove the same to be having direct link with business activities. The relevant case law hereinabove (supra) involves instances of contribution paid for construction of chamber and commerce building, contribution towards canal construction irrigating sugarcane fields and participation expenditure in a trade, association or fund set up for advancement of business; respectively. No such facts emerge from assessee's impugned claim.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P.-Ii, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar Factory ... on 6 May, 1988

21. The assessee's fourth substantive ground challenges the Assessing Officer's action disallowing its claim of ₹10,35,400/- incurred on account of payment made towards subscription to US India Business Counsel "UBIC" n the nature of annual membership fees. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the same for the reason that this payment does not have any link with assessee's business. The assessee's case before us is that it has already filed name, address, date, amount invoice No. and date of invoice details before the lower authorities to prove the actual payment. It pleads during the course of hearing that the payee herein is a renowned non profit orginzation promoting bilateral trade environment between the two countries. The same is projected as wider platform created for successfully contributing its efforts to global economy. Learned counsel terms assessee's annual member-ship payment to be involving commercial consideration for obtaining commercial advantage liability to be treated as revenue expenditure. Case law CIT vs. Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd. 292 ITR 155 (Mad), CIT vs. Co-operative Sugars Ltd. 304 ITR 259 (Ker) and ACIT vs. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. 274 ITR 465 (Raj) is quoted in support. We find no merit in assessee's above submissions. We make it clear that although it has placed on record its only membership detailed followed by actual payment. it is very much imperative to prove the scheme of above counal or its bye-laws vis-à-vis the assessee's relevant business activity. We are of the opinion that mere payment of an amount does not prove the same to be having direct link with business activities. The relevant case law hereinabove (supra) involves instances of contribution paid for construction of chamber and commerce building, contribution towards canal construction irrigating sugarcane fields and participation expenditure in a trade, association or fund set up for advancement of business; respectively. No such facts emerge from assessee's impugned claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 166 - M H Kania - Full Document

Cit vs Ratilal Bacharilal & Sons on 22 July, 2005

It invites our attention towards the impugned transfer pricing adjustment computation enterprise qua the entire operating expenses of ₹109,22,00,000/- as against the relevant value of international transactions of ₹1848,88,843/-- (supra) only as per various judicial precedents CIT vs. Ratilal Bechlal & Sons (2016) 65 taxman.com 155 (Bom), CIT vs. Fire Stone International Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 60 taxman.com 235 (Bom), CIT vs. Thysen Group Industries (I) P. Ltd. (2016) 70 taxman.com 329 as well as CIT vs. M/s Tara Jewel Export Pvt. Ltd., ITA 1814/2013 decided on 05.10.2015 hon'ble Bombay high court. Its case accordingly is that lower authorities right from the TPO upto Assessing Officer as well as DRP have erred in law as well as on facts in taking entity level margin than those pertaining to its international transactions only.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 14 - V C Daga - Full Document

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs Dcit, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata on 16 May, 2018

A co-ordinate bench's decision in EIH Ltd. vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2017 decided on 16.05.2018 also holds Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Australia, Singapore, France's DTAA to be not involving any FTS clause or the same to be taxable only if 'make available condition is satisfied.. All these submissions have gone unrebutted from the Revenue's side. We still feel it appropriate that in case the Assessing Officer heeds to conduct a detailed exercise payee-wise vis-à-vis the relevant conditions incorporated in the corresponding DTAAs and take fresh a fresh callas per the necessary Articles therein regarding taxation of fee for technical services payments. We thus accept assessee's contention in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary factual verification more particularly in view of the fact that we have already restored the main issue (supra) back to the Assessing Officer for afresh proceedings in preceding paragraphs.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 61 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next