Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)
Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S National Engineering Industries ... on 12 September, 2018
cites
Section 98 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Prolifics Corporation Limited ... vs Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad, ... on 17 March, 2017
Further, Hon`ble ITAT Hyd. in the case of M/s. Prolific Corporation Ltd vs DCIT Circle-
3(l), Hyd. (AY 2009-10) 55 taxmann.com 226 (Hyd) has held that the transaction of
providing corporate guarantee involves services rendered to AE and therefore provisions
of transfer pricing can be invoked in respect of such transactions. Similar view was taken
by Hon`ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Tata Auto comp (ITA No.7354/Mumbai/2011).
Therefore, ld TPO held that it is valid, in so far holding the transaction as International
transaction and thereafter working out the inherent cost element to such transaction and
ALP as a consequence. The ld TPO noted that as far as quantum of CG fee is concerned,
it is to be stated that the CG was given in AY 2011-12 and the same was benchmarked by
the TPO at the time of TP proceeding for that year after due consideration of the facts and
circumstances involved in the transaction and objections put forward by the assessee.
Since the CG is continuing in the year also without any change in terms and conditions
and also quantum (as communicated and accepted by the assessee) there is no scope for
revisiting the decisions taken by the TPO in the AY 2011-12. In view of the above facts,
assessee's prayer for reduction of GG fee from 3% was rejected. Thereafter the arm's
length rate of CG fee had been determined at 3% p.a. Accordingly, the quantum of arm's
length adjustment on account of Corporate Guarantee fee computed as under:
Associated Banking Corporation Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay-1 on 22 October, 1964
We note that the Hon`ble Supreme Court has considered the matter and laid
down the law in this regard in two decisions in BadridasDaga vs CIT [1958] 34
ITR 10 and Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd, v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR
7, wherein it was held that the loss resulting from embezzlement by an employee
or agent of a business is admissible as a deduction under section 10(1) of the 1922
Act [corresponding to section 28 of the 1961 Act], if it arises out of the carrying
on of the business and is incidental to it, and loss must be deemed to have arisen
only when the employer comes to know about it and realizes that the amounts
embezzled cannot be recovered.
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.I.T vs Ahmedeabad Cotton Mfg.Co. Ltd on 15 October, 1993
We are unable to admit the appeal as it is recorded by the Learned Tribunal
that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has followed the decision of the
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of [CIT vs. MODEL MFG.
CO.] reported in 175 ITR 374 (CAL) and in the case of [CIT vs. RUSSEL
PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.] 137 ITR 473(CAL). This issue was also raised
before another coordinate Bench of Learned Tribunal and it was accepted by
the same Bench. However, it is recorded that the facts and circumstances of
the issue was identically same with that of the assessment year 2005-06. The
learned Tribunal while accepting the decision of the coordinate Bench and
having found the CIT (A) has followed the decision of the Jurisdictional High
Court we do not think the Learned Tribunal has passed any wrong order in
any manner, whatsoever. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the same,
though Mr. Bhowmick urged that the decision of the High Court was not on
proper discussion or reason and it was dismissed with one line verdict. But
we are of the view when the High Court dismissed an appeal and upheld the
action of the learned Tribunal it is an acceptance of the High Court itself.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed accordingly. Certified Photostat copy of
this order, be made available to the parties, lf applied for, upon compliance
of usual formalities."
The Finance Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. on 10 November, 1981
We are unable to admit the appeal as it is recorded by the Learned Tribunal
that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has followed the decision of the
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of [CIT vs. MODEL MFG.
CO.] reported in 175 ITR 374 (CAL) and in the case of [CIT vs. RUSSEL
PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.] 137 ITR 473(CAL). This issue was also raised
before another coordinate Bench of Learned Tribunal and it was accepted by
the same Bench. However, it is recorded that the facts and circumstances of
the issue was identically same with that of the assessment year 2005-06. The
learned Tribunal while accepting the decision of the coordinate Bench and
having found the CIT (A) has followed the decision of the Jurisdictional High
Court we do not think the Learned Tribunal has passed any wrong order in
any manner, whatsoever. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the same,
though Mr. Bhowmick urged that the decision of the High Court was not on
proper discussion or reason and it was dismissed with one line verdict. But
we are of the view when the High Court dismissed an appeal and upheld the
action of the learned Tribunal it is an acceptance of the High Court itself.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed accordingly. Certified Photostat copy of
this order, be made available to the parties, lf applied for, upon compliance
of usual formalities."
Vi Micro Systems P Ltd., Chennai vs Acit, Chennai on 29 August, 2017
The
cost of the assessee has been affirmed in many Judgments, which has not been
considered by the ITAT Ahmedabad in while delivering Judgment in the case of
Micro Ink Ltd. vs ACIT dated 27/11/2015 (ITA No.2873 of 2010).