Search Results For: B. S. Soparkar


Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 24, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Important law explained on whether termination of Option rights under an agreement can be treated as a "deemed international transaction" under section 92B(2) of the Act read with Rule 10B (4) in the light of the judgements in Vodafone's own cases of the Supreme Court (341 ITR 1) and the Bombay High Court (385 ITR 169).

When we interpose the aforesaid statutory definition in Section 92C(1), we find that the expression ‘international transaction’ means “an arrangement, understanding or action in concert etc between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other an arrangement, understanding or action in concert having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises ……..”. Therefore, in order to ascertain whether a particular transaction or not is an international transaction or not, the necessary preconditions which are to be satisfied are (a) that it is in the nature “an arrangement, understanding or action in concert etc”; (b) that it is between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents; and (c) that it has a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises

CIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd (Gujarat High Court) (Full Bench)

COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 4, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 16, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 115JA/ JB Book Profits: Clause (i) to the Explanation was inserted to supersede HCL Comnet 305 ITR 409 (SC). Accordingly, a mere provision for bad debts has to be added back for computation of book profit u/s 115JA/JB. However, in terms of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166 (SC), if there is a simultaneous reduction from the loans and advances on the asset side of the balance sheet, the provision amounts to a write-off of the debt which is not hit by clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB

By way of culmination of above judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions, the situation that arises is that prior to the introduction of clause(i) to the explanation to section 115JB, as held by the Supreme Court in case of HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. (supra), the then existing clause (c) did not cover a case where the assessee made a provision for bad or doubtful debt. With insertion of clause (i) to the explanation with retrospective effect, any amount or amounts set aside for provision for diminution in the value of the asset made by the assessee, would be added back for computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act. However, if this was not a mere provision made by the assessee by merely debiting the Profit and Loss Account and crediting the provision for bad and doubtful debt, but by simultaneously obliterating such provision from its accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from the loans and advances on the asset side of the balance sheet and consequently, at the end of the year showing the loans and advances on the asset aside of the balance sheet as net of the provision for bad debt, it would amount to a write off and such actual write off would not be hit by clause (i) of the explanation to section 115JB

Mehsana District Central Co-op Bank Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 19, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 27, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/148: Law on validity of reopening of assessment when the AO is acting on the dictates of the audit party and is not applying his own mind explained

Nevertheless, if we see entire sequence, it becomes clear that the Assessing Officer was clearly acting under the dictates of the audit party. Even after issuing the notice, he still maintained an opinion that no income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. If that be so, he ought to have dropped the assessment proceedings, at least at that stage when the petitioner raised the objections which even without such objections, the Assessing Officer was convinced, were valid

Jagdish Gandabhai Shah vs. Pr CIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 1, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6): CBDT's instruction dated 29.02.2016 on stay of demand by the AO does not require the assessee to make a pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand. As per the Instruction, if the AO requires the assessee to pay less, or more, than 15% of the demand, the sanction of the Pr. CIT is required. If the AO demands 15% to be paid, the assessee is entitled to approach the Pr CIT for review of the AO's decision

The interpretation by the Assessing Officer that at the time of submitting stay application and/or before stay application is taken up for consideration on merits, the assessee is required to deposit 15% of the disputed demand as pre-deposit is absolutely based on misinterpretation and/or misreading of the modified Instructions dated 29th February 2016. What Clause-4 provides is that the Assessing Officer may/shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the case falls in the category mentioned in para 4 [B] of the modified instructions dated 29th February 2016. Under the circumstances, the impugned decision of the respondent no. 2 in rejecting the stay application and consequently directing the petitioner to deposit 100% of the disputed demand on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited 15% of the disputed demand as a pre-deposit before his application for stay is considered on merits cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside

Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 30, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 15, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-2010
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: If AO contests the audit objection but still reopens to comply with the audit objection, it means he has not applied his mind independently and the reopening is void

To satisfy ourselves, whether the reassessment proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the audit party and solely on the ground of audit objections ….. On a perusal of the files, the noting made therein and the relevant documents,

Top