Three Imp Verdicts Of ITAT

ITO vs. Pioneer Radio Training Services Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

S. 14A/ Rule 8D: (i) Expenditure (like audit fees) required to be incurred irrespective of income cannot be disallowed, (ii) investments in subsidiaries are not to earn dividend income and cannot be considered for disallowance

It is also evident from the balance sheet of the Appellant Co., its investments in shares were only in two subsidiary companies. Such investments in subsidiary companies were made by the Appellant to acquire/promote the subsidiary companies which are in the media business and were not made purely for earning dividend income. Neither any dividend income has been earned since the time such investments were made in the shares of the subsidiary companies. Hence, such investments cannot be considered for disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D

 

Goldstar Jewellery Limited vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

While delay in recovery of debt from AE is an "international transaction", it is a part of the transaction of sale and its ALP has to be evaluated on an overall basis

After the insertion of explanation to section 92B(1), the payment or deferred payment or receivable or any debt arising during the course of business fall under the expression international transaction as per explanation. Therefore, in view of the expanded meaning of the international transaction as contemplated under clause (i) (e) of explanation to section 92B(1), the delay in realization of dues from the AE in comparison to non-AE would certainly falls in the ambit of international transaction. However, this transaction of allowing the credit period to AE on realization of sale proceeds is not an independent international transaction but it is a closely linked or continuous transaction along with sale transaction to the AE. The credit period allowed to the party depends upon various factors which also includes the price charged by the assessee from purchaser. Therefore, the credit period extended by the assessee to the AE cannot be examined independently but has to be considered along with the main international transaction being sale to the AE

 

Anil Bhansali vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

S. 5(1) r.w. Art 16(1) of DTAA: Taxability of stock options allotted outside India by foreign co to NOR employee for services rendered in India considered

Without ascertaining how much of the SOTP is attributable to services rendered in India, the entire amount cannot be made taxable only because the money was received in India. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee having residential status of ‘not ordinarily resident’, only that portion of the stock awards and SOTP attributable to services rendered in India can form part of total income for the assessment year