TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreement for lease of premises on 10.6.2009 and for furniture on 18.1.2010. The AO observed, in absence of furniture and fixture in the office, the assessee could not have started/commenced its business operation. He therefore, was of the opinion that the expenditure incurred prior to the date of execution of the furniture agreement dated 18.1.2010 are in the nature of pre-operative expenses. Therefore, he directed the assessee to show cause as to why the expenditures claimed being in the nature of pre-operative expenses should not be restricted to the amount as per the provisions of section 35D of the Act. Though the assessee objecting to proposed disallowance submitted that it has commenced its business activity from June, 2009 and the expenditure incurred were after commencement of the business activities, however, the AO rejecting the claim of the assessee worked out the allowable expenses u/s 35D at Rs. 9,95,000/- and restricted the deduction to 1/5th of the allowable expenses so worked out by quantifying it at Rs. 1,99,000/-. Resultantly, the excess amount of Rs. 1,06,08,152/- out of the expenditure claimed by the assessee was added back to the total income of the assessee.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmencement of business. He requested the Bench to admit them as additional evidence and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for adjudicating the issue afresh after assessing the evidences as may be placed by the assessee before the AO. 6. Ld.DR submitted, since the assessee was not able to produce any evidence before the AO and ld.CIT(A), in spite of adequate opportunity being given such evidence should not be admitted now. Relying upon the observations of the CIT(A) and AO, the ld.DR submitted, the assessee having failed to establish the commencement of the business from June, 2009, deduction claimed by the assessee prior to commencement of business cannot be allowed fully. He, therefore, submitted, the decision of the ld.CIT(A) be affirmed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen, the dispute in relation to assessee's claim of deduction u/s 35D arises in limited context; viz, when the business of the assessee can be said to have commenced. Though, the assessee has claimed that the business has commenced from June, 2009, however, the AO has rebutted the claim relying upon the furniture agreement executed on 18.1.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee that the payment made by the assessee to M/s Bloomberg Data Services India Pvt.Ltd was not for any managerial or technical consultancy services. It was submitted, such data is accessible by any subscriber on payment of requisite fee. He, therefore submitted, the payment made does not attract the provisions of section 194J of the Act. However, the AO, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and disallowed an amount of Rs. 8,23,275/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Though the assessee challenged the decision of the AO before the ld.CIT(A), he refused to interfere with the same. 8. The ld. AR submitted that the payment made by the assessee is merely for accessing the data of the payee company. It was submitted, since the payment made was for terminal charges for online information and data base access and retrieval services, no TDS u/s 194J was required to be deducted since such payments was for subscription of financial e-magazine. The ld. AR submitted that the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. India Capital Markets P. Ltd. V/s DCIT in ITA.No.2948/Mum/2010 and 4851/Mum/2010( Ay 2006-2007) dated 12-12-2012 while considering similar payment made to the same com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year, the assessee entered into international transaction of provision of advisory services to its AE. The assessee conducted an independent TP analysis by adopting Transactional Net Market Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. The assessee selected 11 companies as comparables with average margin of 22.60% as compared to 17.50% shown by it. Therefore, price charged for international transaction to the AE was found to be at Arm's Length. The AO, however, was not agreeable to the Transfer Price analysis made by the assessee. He was of the view that certain comparables selected by the assessee were not having data for the year ending March, 2009 and 2010, hence, the arithmetical mean in respect of the comparables can not be determined. According to the AO those comparables are to be ignored. In respect of three other comparables, the AO found that they have negative markup, therefore cannot be compared with the assessee. Thus, he finally found three companies having positive margin to be comparables with the assessee. The Arithmetic mean of these comparables worked out to 22.60%. By adding further 5% to the arithmetic mean of 22.60% of the three comparables AO worked out the m....