Search Results For: Ananya Kapoor


Halcrow Consulting India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 31, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 11, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Under Explanation 7 to s. 271(1)(c), the onus on the assessee is only to show that the ALP is computed in accordance with the scheme of s. 92 C in good faith and due diligence. The fact that the TPO changes the method of computation of ALP does not mean it is a fit case for imposition of penalty if there is no dishonesty is found in the conduct of the assessee

The scheme of Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act makes it clear that the onus on the assessee is only to show that the ALP was computed by the assessee in accordance with the scheme of section 92 C of the Act in good faith and due diligence. It is not in dispute here that the ALP was computed in accordance with the scheme of section 92C inasmuch as Cost Plus Method was used. The TPO only substituted Cost Plus Method with TNMM and also computed the ALP of intra group services by taking the ALP as nil by applying the CUP Method. Whatever may be the merits in the action of the TPO changing the method of computation of ALP, the same cannot be a fit case for imposition of penalty inasmuch as it cannot be said that the ALP had not been computed by the assessee under the scheme of section 92C

Systra SA Project Office vs. DRP (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 24, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14, 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 144C DRP: Action of the DRP in granting time to the assessee till 24th July 2017 to submit documents but in still passing the order on the same day itself and that too without taking on record the documents produced by the assessee is clearly unreasonable and in violation of the principles of natural justice

Clearly, the Respondent acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, since despite the time being granted to the Petitioner till 24th July 2017 to submit documents sought by the DRP, the DRP passed the order on 24th July, 2017 itself and that too without taking on record the documents produced by the Petitioner till then. The time given for the Petitioner to do so was just four days. This was clearly unreasonable, particularly, since there was an intervening weekend between 20th and 24th July, 2017

DDIT vs. Metapath Software International Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 9, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied unless there is "evidence beyond doubt" that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee. The fact that the assessee did not voluntarily furnish the return of income, and that the merits were decided against it, does not per se justify levy of penalty. The bonafides of the explanation of the assessee for not complying with the law have to be seen

It is an well established proposition of law that being penal in nature, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked only when there is evidence beyond doubt that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the tax alleged to be evaded. That is the reason behind that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent proceedings. In other words, making and sustaining an addition against the assessee will not be always resulted into levy of penalty

Hyundai Rotem Company vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The TPO is required to be consistent in matters relating to selection of comparables. If a comparable has been included or rejected in an earlier year, he is not entitled to take a different view in a later year if there is no change in circumstances

Without any proper reason or change in the functionality and financial data, it cannot be held that these companies are to be excluded/included (as prayed for herein above), in the intermediary period of the assessment year under consideration. The TPO has to bring some material on record to show as to why these comparables which were excluded/included (as prayed for herein above) in the earlier year and also in succeeding year, cannot be excluded/included in the year under consideration

DCIT vs. Ikea Trading (India) P Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 30/ 37(1): Expenditure on repairs of rented premises, even if huge and accumulated, are allowable as revenue expenditure. Fact that CIT(A) admitted additional evidence is no justification for seeking a set aside to the AO if the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO: Savarana Spinning mills Limited 293 ITR 201 (SC) distinguished

The contention of the revenue that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in CIT vs. M/s. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. 293 ITR 201 pleading that the most of the expenditure are not in the nature of current repair expenditure but accumulated repairs so even though the expenditure is revenue in nature, same is not allowable. We find that the reliance on this decision by the revenue is misplaced as in that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned about the modernisation and replacement expenses on the textile mill and it was held that it was not allowable. In the present case, the issue is not of repairs on plant and machinery but related to expenditure on building, further the building is also not owned by the assessee but is a rented premises. The expenditure would be dealt with by the provision of section 30. On reading of the above section, the accumulated repairs are not allowed when the assessee owns building and therefore as a tenant cost of repairs to the premises is allowable whether they are accumulated or current

Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Reopening in the absence of fresh material and merely on change of opinion is nor permissible

Assessee had made full and true disclosure during the original assessment proceedings. We are also of the view that reopening had been done merely on change of opinion in as much as that in the original assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act. We also find that AO has no fresh material to form his opinion regarding escapement of assessment and he has also not found any tangible material to record the reasons for reopening of the assessment of the assessee. It is a settled law that merely change of opinion is not permissible under the law

Dr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: March 3, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Section 147, reopening, reopening on factually erroneous premise, not permissible, change of opinion

Since the action of the Revenue was based on a factually erroneous premise, the Court is of the view that the reopening of the assessments for the said AYs is not sustainable in law. The Court is also satisfied that the requirement of the law, as explained by the Court in Commissioner of Income Tax. v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), and reiterated in the later decisions, has not been fulfilled in the present case

Top