I. Recent Updates:
1. M/s. SKIL Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer - TDS 3(3), ITA No. 3419 & 3420/Mum/2010, (A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09), Date: 31.10.2011, ITAT "E" Bench - Mumbai
Held: the contract for transportation in respect of chartering a helicopter/aircrafts do not attract provisions of TDS u/s 194I. Respectfully following the views expressed in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. ITO 43 SOT 215 (Mum) and Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT ITA No. 1637/Ahd/2010 dated 10.03.2011, it is held that assessee has correctly deducted tax under section 194C and there is no liability to deduct tax under section 194 I as the said provisions are not applicable to the hire charges paid for utilisation of transport services from the respective service providers. In view of this, impugned orders of the A.O. levying tax under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) are hereby set aside.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. ACIT Vs. M/s. Smith & Newphew Healthcare (P) Ltd., ITA NO. 5779/MUM/07 (A.Y. 2003-04), Date: 09.11.2011, ITAT "L" Bench - Mumbai
Held: As rightly held by the CIT(A), the requirement of law is that the Assessee has to “keep and maintain” information and documents in respect of international transaction entered into with AE. Rule 10D(4) of the Rules envisages that the information and documents specified under sub-rules (1) and (2) should, as far as possible, be contemporaneous and should exist latest by the specified date referred to in clause (iv) of section 92F, which is due date for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. The Assessment order and the order imposing penalty u/s.271AA of the Act, does not specify what was the failure on the part of the Assessee under Sec.92D read with Rule 10D of the Rules. The Assessee has in the course of assessment proceedings furnished all details required by the AO and the international transaction with the AE has been accepted to be one confirming to the Arm’s Length Price.
No addition whatsoever was made by the AO in the order of assessment in respect of the international transaction with AE. Thus the AO has found no difficulty in examining the correctness of the price adopted by the Assessee in respect of International Transaction with the AE. In other words the AO was not handicapped in examining the price of the international transaction between the Assessee with its AE having regard to Arm’s Length Price. In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no justification for imposition of penalty. For the reasons given above, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal by the Revenue. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Please click here for judgment)
New User? 
Subscribe Now