Four Imp Verdicts On Transfer Pricing, S. 54EC, S. 37(1)

Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Argument that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made if the assessee’s income is deductible u/s 10A/ 10B is not acceptable. Contrary view in TCS cannot be followed as it is obiter dicta & contrary to law laid down in Aztech Software 107 ITD 141 (SB)

No exception has been carved out by the statute for non-determination of the ALP of an international transaction of an assessee who is eligible for the benefit of deduction section 10A/10B or any other section of Chapter- VIA of the Act. Section 92(1) clearly provides that any income arising from an international transaction is required to be computed having regard to its arm’s length price. There is no provision exempting the computation of total income arising from an international transaction having regard to its ALP, in the case of an assessee entitled to deduction u/s 10A or 10B or any other relevant provision. Section 92C dealing with computation of ALP clearly provides that the ALP in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by one of the methods given in this provision. This section also does not immune an international transaction from the computation of its ALP when income is otherwise eligible for deduction. On the contrary, we find that sub-section (4) of section 92C plainly stipulates that where an ALP is determined, the AO may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the ALP so determined. This shows that the total income of an assessee entering into an international transaction, is required to be necessarily computed having regard to its ALP without any exception

Neela S. Karyakarte vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

54EC: The period of “6 months” available for making investment means 6 calendar months & not 180 days. Payment by cheque dates back to date of presentation & not date of encashment

For purposes of section 54EC, as held by the Special Bench of Ahmedabad bench in the case of Alkaben B. Patel (2014) 148 ITD 31 (Ahd) and M/s. Crucible Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5994/Mum/2013 dated 25.02.2015 “6 months” have been interpreted and it is held that the same would mean 6 calendar months and not 180 days. As held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (1954) 25 ITR 529 (SC), in the case of cheques not having been dishonored but having been encashed, the payment related back to the date of the receipt of the cheques and in law the dates of payments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques

Mangal Keshav Securities Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Expl to s. 37(1): Penalties & fines paid to SEBI, BSE etc for breach of regulatory/ procedural requirements are “compensatory” in nature and not for any purpose which is an ‘offense’ prohibited by the law
An ‘offence’ would be the one which will arise as a result to commission of an action which is prohibited by law, and, in all the given situations, no element of any consent of the parties involved can bring any change in its legal consequences. Similarly, any amount paid by the assessee, in the form of compensation, as a consequence of breach of contract between the two parties, cannot be said to be amount paid for any purpose which is an ‘offence’, prohibited by the law. In other words, under the income tax law, one is required to go into the real nature of the transactions and not to the nomenclature that may have been assigned by the parties. Thus, to decide such issues, we are required to see real substance under the Income Tax Law, and not merely its form. Thus, only those payments, which have been made by the assessee for any purpose which is an ‘offence’ or which is ‘prohibited by law’, shall alone would be hit by the explanation to section 37

Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
There is a distinction betwen “setting up” and “commencement” of a business. A business is “set up” and expenditure is deductible even if assessee has no customers and no income
The assessee has already purchased residential flat for the purpose of resale/lease, and therefore assessee was apparently ready to do its business. Under these circumstances, it can be said that the business is set up by the assessee during the year under consideration. For the deductibility of expenses incurred after this stage, earning of the business income is not a mandatory condition under the law. The assessee may not have been successful in getting customers or earning the business income, but if the assessee has done requisite preparations and if the assessee can be said to be in a position to cater to its customers, then it can be said that business is set up and it would amount to carrying on the business and accordingly the expenses would stand allowable to the assessee, irrespective of the fact whether actually assessee got any customer and earned any business income during the year or not