Search Results For: Haresh G. Buch


Shilpa Shetty vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 21, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 28, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92 Transfer Pricing: (i) Chapter 10 presupposes the existence of “income” and lays down machinery provision to compute ALP of such income. S. 92 is not an independent charging section to bring in a new head of income or to charge tax on income which is otherwise not chargeable under the Act. If no income has accrued to or received by the assessee u/s 5, no notional income can be brought to tax u/s 92 of the Act (ii) It is a jurisdictional requirement that the AO has to record satisfaction that there is “income” or potential of income. The recording of 'satisfaction' about the existence of an "international transaction" is also essential. This is only within the jurisdiction of the AO and the CIT(A) cannot substitute his satisfaction for that of the AO. Such substitution of satisfaction is impermissible in law as it amounts to curing a jurisdictional defect

We are of the view that since chapter 10 pre-supposes the existence of “income” and lays down machinery provison to compute ALP of such income, if it arises from an „International transaction‟. Section 92 is not an independent charging section to bring in a new head of income or to charge tax on income which is otherwise not chargeable under the Act. Accordingly, since no income had accrued to or received by the assessee u/s 5, no notional income can be brought to tax u/s 92 of the Act

Schrader Duncan Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 7, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): If the High Court admits the appeal u/s 260A, it means that the issue is debatable and penalty cannot survive

When the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive

Top