Search Results For: Mukesh Butani


CLSA India Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: January 16, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 15, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92C Transfer Pricing: It is mandatory for the AO to determine the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transactions by following one of the prescribed methods. He is not entitled to follow any other method or to resort to estimation. The failure to follow one of the prescribed methods makes the entire transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable in law. The legal infirmity cannot be cured by restoring the issue to the TPO. The TPO cannot be allowed another innings to rectify the mistake

Section 92C(1) of the Act, contemplates that the arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by comparable uncontrolled price method; resale price method; cost plus method; profit split method; transactional net margin method or such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. Hence, the TPO is bound to determine the ALP by following one of the prescribed methods, however, we notice that in the present case the Ld. TPO has not followed any prescribed methods and made the transfer pricing adjustment by estimating the man hours and the cost of service per hour. We therefore, find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel that any ad-hoc determination of arms length price by the Ld TPO u/s section 92 de-hors section 92C(1) of the Act cannot be sustained

DIT vs. Lufthansa Cargo India (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9: Retrospective amendments seeking to tax income of non-residents does not affect the “source rule”. The amendment makes no any difference to the non-taxability of payments made to foreign companies if the income accrues abroad

While no doubt, the explanation is deemed to be clarificatory and for a good measure retrospective at that, nevertheless there is nothing in its wording which overrides the exclusion of payments made under Section 9(1)(vii)(b). The Supreme Court clarified this in GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO 371 ITR 453 Thus, it is evident that the “source” rule, i.e the purpose of the expenditure incurred, i.e for earning the income from a source in India, is applicable

Top