A BREAKING NEWS:
Supreme
Court stays order of Delhi High Court stopping Centre from recovering
Service Tax on Renting of Immovable Property for commercial use.
Recent Updates:
1. M/S
ADOBE SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX, I.T.A. NO. 5043/DEL/2010 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THE ITAT - DELHI BENCH
“ A ” NEW DELHI
Held that
Transfer Pricing: Super-normal profit cos must be excluded from comparables. The
assessee, engaged in providing software development services reported
an OP/Cost Margin of 14.96%. The TPO worked out the average of
arithmetic mean of ALP (OP/OC) of 42 comparables at 24.91% and directed
that an adjustment of Rs. 10.40 crores be made. In its objections to
the DRP, the assessee claimed that the comparables included three
companies which were “super-normal profit making” and that these should
be excluded. It was claimed that if the said companies were excluded,
the arithmetic mean of OP/OC of the comparables was 17.15% which was
within the +/- 5% range permitted by s.92(C)(2).Further
held that, It is quite contrary to the mandate of section 144C of the
IT Act, where the 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.
(Please click here for detail)
2. COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR vs. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., TRICHUR, ITA.
Nos. 467, 720, 730, 843, 479, 1324 & 1045 of 2009 & 40 of 2010 DATE OF ORDER: 21.10.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Held that
There
is no precise formula for proportionate disallowance of administrative
expenditure. No disallowance is called for, for proportionate
administrative cost attributable to earning of tax free income until
Rule 8D came into force. 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.
(Please click here for detail)
3. SHRI BALWANT RAI WADHWA VS. ITO, THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, I.T.A NO. 4806/DEL/10
Non-supply of ‘Reasons for reopening’ u/s 148 within the time renders the reopening of assessment u/s 147 void. The
AO served notice u/s 148 within the limitation period. However, the
recorded reasons were supplied after the limitation period. The
assessee argued before the Tribunal that in the light of the
observations in Haryana Acrylic vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del), if the
reasons for reopening were not served on the assessee within 6 years
i.e. within the limitation period, the reopening was void. The Tribunal
allowed the appeal of the assessee.
(Please click here for detail)
What's New
-
RBI/2010-11/393 - Annual Financial Inspection – Priority Sector Loans – Mis-classification by Banks (Click for detail)
-
RBI/2010-11/392 - Anti- Money Laundering (AML) / Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT) Standards (Click for detail)
"I can write better than anybody who can write faster, and I can write faster than anybody who can write better"
Thanks for your valuable time
"Voice of CA"
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA
Member Central Council - ICAI
Former Chairman - NIRC
Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA
Mob:9540022533, mukbansal80@gmail.com