Category: Tribunal

Archive for the ‘Tribunal’ Category


DCIT vs. ING Investment (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

For purposes of s. 14A, only the expenditure which is proved to have a nexus with the exempt income can be disallowed and not on an ad-hoc basis.

Philips Software vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) (4 MB)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 3, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The AO/TPO have to satisfy and communicate to the taxpayer which one of the four conditions prescribed in s. 92C (3) are satisfied before applying the transfer pricing provisions and the failure to demonstrate this to the assessee renders the transfer pricing order void

Sony India vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 2, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Under Rule 10B (2) (c) the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction has to be judged with reference to the contractual terms. Accordingly, the actual transaction, as entered into between the parties, has to be considered and the authorities have no right to re-write the transaction unless it is held that it is sham or bogus or entered into by the parties in bad faith to avoid and evade taxes.

Automated Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Pune) (1.8 MB)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 24, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In order to attract the non-discrimination clause in Article 26, mere differential treatment is not enough. The assessee has to show that not only has it been subjected to differential treatment vis-à-vis others but also that the ground for this differentiation in treatment is unreasonable, arbitrary or irrelevant and that the basis of differentiation lacks any coherent relationship with the object sought to be achieved by that provision.

UPS Freight Services vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 24, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

As the 3rd Provio to s. 245 (2A) {restricting the right of the Tribunal to grant stay beyond 365 days even if the delay is not attributable to the assessee} comes into force on 1.10.2008, there is no bar on the Tribunal before that date to grant stay beyond 365 days.

ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 16, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

However, where such gain relates to exports made in an earlier year, the deuction u/s 80HHC is allowable only in the year in which the exports are made and not in the year of realisation of the gain.

Cebon India vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 15, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that s. 292BB was procedural and prospective.

L. G. Cable Ltd vs. DDIT (6.2 MB) (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 13, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the assessee, a Korean company, had entered into two contracts, one for on-shore execution of a fiber optic system and the other for offshore supply and services and it had a project office in India and the question arose whether any part of the profits from offshore supply was taxable in India, HELD:

Avaya Global Connect vs. ACIT (1.2 MB) (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 4, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the assessee transferred its undertaking under a scheme of demerger which provided that neither the assessee nor its shareholders would receive any consideration from the transferee company as the value of the liabilities taken over were more than the value of the assets taken over and the assessee treated the difference between the said liabilities and assets as a capital reserve and the question arose whether such difference was assessable to tax, Held:

ACIT vs. Bright Star Investment (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 28, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Of the two formulas available, the formula adopted by the assessee, i.e. of taking the difference between the indexed book value on the date of conversion and the sale proceeds as long-term capital gains, being beneficial to the assessee, should be adopted. No part of the gains can be assessed as business income.

Top