TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal's Decision on Deduction</h1> <h3>Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 2(1) Versus Audco India Ltd.</h3> Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 2(1) Versus Audco India Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:1. Deduction under section 80HHC in respect of profit on DEPB license.2. Addition under section 92CA(3) regarding transfer pricing adjustments.Issue 1 - Deduction under section 80HHC:The appeal pertains to the allowance of deduction under section 80HHC for profit on DEPB license by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer questioned the eligibility of the assessee for this deduction due to the DEPB Scheme. However, the ld. CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the conditions under the proviso to section 80HHC were met. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the issue was similar to a recent judgment by the Jurisdictional High Court and decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in line with the court's decision. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation of the claim after providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The revenue's grounds were partly allowed for statistical purposes in this regard.Issue 2 - Addition under section 92CA(3) - Transfer Pricing:The second issue concerns the addition of Rs. 7,28,865 made by the Assessing Officer under section 92CA(3) related to transfer pricing adjustments. The ld. CIT(A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer's decision based on the facts presented. The ld. CIT(A) highlighted that the difference between the sale price to a related party and the Arm's Length Price was within the permissible tolerance limit of 5%. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the TPO's approach was selective and arbitrary. As there was no contrary material presented by the revenue against the ld. CIT(A)'s findings, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's ground on this issue. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of deduction under section 80HHC and transfer pricing adjustments under section 92CA(3), providing detailed analysis and considerations based on the facts and legal provisions involved in the case.
TaxTMI 