CIT v KAJAL EXPORTS [Tax Appeal No. 756 of 2013 dated 23.01.2014] (Gujarat High Court) Background: Assessee is engaged in business of export activities. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had made borrowings throughout the year under the banner of business necessity and on review of the purchases and the sales patterns of the assessee, held that the funds borrowed were utilised for purposes other than business. The AO further noted that the assessee had advanced money to close relatives/ sister concerns without charging the interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest expenditure. CIT(Appeals) concluded that the borrowed funds were not used for the business purposes in the AY 2003-04 and the AO was justified in disallowing the expenditure on such borrowed funds to the extent it is claimed in the P&L account. The Tribunal deleted the entire amount except Rs.21,900/-, i.e. 15% of Rs.1.46 lakhs.
Monthly Archives: April 2014
CCIT v Sarva Equity (P.) Ltd [IT APPEAL NOS. 322 TO 324 OF 2014 dtd 08.01.2014] – Karnataka HC Background: Assessee and Ittina Properties Private Limited are sister concerns. The assessee had taken an unsecured loan from Ittina of Rs.9,56,48,107. The AO treated the loan as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The Directors and shareholders of both the companies, are members of one and the same family and they have substantial holding in M/s. Ittina and assessee company. The Appellate Authority reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer holding that the respondent-assessee is not a shareholder of M/s. Ittina Properties Private Limited and in view thereof, not liable to pay taxes under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The order of the appellate authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal.
Indirect shareholding is not covered under the fiction of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) – Karnataka ...
Nortel Networks India (P.) Ltd. v Addln CIT [ITA No 4765 (DELHI) OF 2011 & 427 (DELHI) OF 2013 dated 25.02.2014] – Delhi ITAT Background: Assessee entered into a service agreement for the provision of marketing and after sales support services on a cost plus mark-up basis. By this agreement, assessee provides marketing and after sales support services to AEs in relation to sale of telecommunication equipments, software and other IT products to customers in India. The assessee considered TNMM as the most appropriate method and has benchmarked the transaction taking Operating profit/ Operating cost (“OP/OC”) as PLI. TPO though accepted assessee’s TNMM method as appropriate method for the ALP, however reworked the same by applying inapplicable comparables as under: In its transfer pricing analysis, the assessee has considered seven comparable companies, whose average unadjusted margin comes to 11.57%, TPO held two out of seven as not comparable. The Capital Trust Limited was held as not a comparable because of low revenue as and Cyber Media Events Limited because of related party transaction exceeding 25% and having diminishing revenue. DRP upheld TPOs order on the ground that the turnover of the comparable in the relevant segment is Rs. 25 Lakh and cannot be compared with the company whose revenue from business support services is more than Rs. 134 Crores.
TP: Companies with lower turnover can also be considered if they are functionally comparable – ...
Shyamlal Tandon v ITO [IT APPEAL NO.1774 (HYD.) OF 2012 dated 21.0.10214] – Hyderabad ITAT Background: The assessee, an individual, did not file his return of income for the AY 2003-04. From the information received from DDIT(Inv), it came to light that the assessee has earned capital gains, which were not disclosed, and consequently, within the meaning of S.147 of the Act, the AO, held the view that there was escapement of income chargeable to tax. Accordingly a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. In response thereto, assessee filed return declaring ‘nil’ income. Assessment Proceedings During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that the assessee, alongwith his father purchased a piece of land on 17.3.1978 for Rs.34,320. The assessee and his son had demolished the house standing on the above plot and gave the property for development. As per clause (4) of the development agreement, both the father and son were entitled to share the built up area on 50:50 basis in exchange of transfer of the land. However, neither the father nor the son have has declared any long term capital gains on transfer of the land in exchange for 50% of the built up area either in the year in which the development agreement was entered into, relevant to assessment year 2001-02 or in the relevant assessment year in which transfer of 50% of the land and building took place. According to the AO, the long term capital gain worked out to Rs.55,75,661 of which the assessee’s share came to Rs.27,87,831, which was assessable to tax in the assessment year 2001-02.