Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1200 - ITAT MUMBAITP adjustment for administrative support serves in relation to Inter Bank Indemnities - selection of MAM - HELD THAT:- The facts in the impugned assessment year are identical to the facts in Assessment Year 2008-09 held that TNMM method would be the Most Appropriate Method in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and CUP could not be applied herein because of non availability of data. In any case in respect of adjustment made simply relying on 133(6) information from the market had been deleted by this Tribunal in the case of Asian Paints Ltd [2014 (1) TMI 16 - ITAT MUMBAI] It is also prudent to note that the same transactions were accepted by the Id. TPO upto A Y2012-13 in the case of the assessee Hence, even going by the rule of consistency as has been held in the case of Radhasoami Satsang [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] there is no need for the Id. TPO to take a divergent stand when there is no change in the facts and circumstances during the year with that of earlier years Hence, we direct the Id TPO to delete the adjustment made in respect of guarantee fees. Decided in favour of assessee. Rate of tax on interest income from foreign currency loans - Tribunal has consistently held that interest income earned on foreign currency loans is taxable @20%. CIT(A) in impugned order has followed the decision of his predecessor in AY 2008-09, which in turn followed the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case in AY 1997-98 - We find no infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue, hence, ground No.1 of appeal is dismissed, sans-merit. Deduction u/s. 44C - AO allowed head office expenses only to the amount reflected in Form 3CEB - Assessee claimed that deduction u/s. 44C should be allowed to the extent of Rs. 9,90,15,825/- or 5% of adjusted total income, whichever is lower - AO rejected the contentions of the assessee further held that the assessee had furnished incomplete and partial details - HELD THAT:- No specific details in respect of the amount in excess of Rs. 2.10 crores is furnished by the assessee - CIT(A) re-examined the documents and accepted submissions of the assessee. CIT(A) allowed assessee’s claim primarily for the reason that the claim of the assessee is within the limit of 5% of the adjusted total income and the said claim of the assessee is supported by auditors certificate. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Doha Bank QSC [2020 (11) TMI 371 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that head office expenses attributable to the business of assessee in India is allowable in accordance the provisions of section 44C, irrespective of the fact whether or not any amount is debited in the books of account.No contrary material is brought before us by the Department to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) or the decision cited by assessee. Not allowing interest on income tax refund as exempt from tax in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(3)(a)(i) of India – Canada DTAA - Whether interest income on income tax refund is exigible to tax in India or is exempt in light of provisions of Article 11(3) of India-Canada DTAA? - HELD THAT:- The treaty under reference in the said case was India-Italy DTAA. On reading of Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty which deals with “Interest”, we find that provisions of clause (3) are pari-materia to clause (3) of Article 11 of India Canada-DTAA. Hence, the ratio decidendi in the case of Ansaldo Energio SPA [2016 (5) TMI 945 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] would apply to the instant ground of appeal. In so far as the decision in the case of B.J. Services Co. Middle East Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 1036 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] on which the CIT(A) has placed reliance, we find that it referred to UK-India DTAA. We have examined the provisions of the said treaty. The provisions of Article -12 dealing with interest in the said DTAA are not parimateria to India- Canada DTAA. There is no clause in Article-12 of India UK-Treaty similar to Article -11(3) in India –Canada Treaty. Hence, the decision in the case of B.J. Services Co. Middle East Ltd [2015 (5) TMI 1036 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the facts of case and the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we find merit in assessee succeeds on ground No.2.
|