Search Results For: Paras Savla


Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 15, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 19, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(1D): AO cannot rely on Instruction No.1/2015 dated 13.01.2015 to withhold refunds as the same has been struck down by the Delhi High Court in Tata Teleservices & the same is binding on all AOs across the Country. Action of the AO in not giving reasons for not processing the refund application is “most disturbing” and stating that he will wait till the last date is “preposterous”. Action of the AO suggests that it is not enough that the deity (Act) is pleased but the priest (AO) must also be pleased

The action of the officer on the ground urged seems to be in complete variance with the higher echelons of administration of the tax administration being an assessee friendly regime. In fact, the CBDT has itself issued Instruction No.7/2012, dated 1st August, 2002 wherein they have specifically directed the officers of the Revenue to process all returns in which refunds are payable expeditiously. Similarly, as late as in 2014 in the Citizen’s Charter issued by the Income Tax Department in its vision statement states that the Department aspires to issue refunds along with interest under Section 143(1) of the Act within 6 months from date of electronically filing the returns. In this case, the return was filed on 29th November, 2015, yet there is no reason why the Assessing Officer has not processed the refund and taken a decision to grant or not grant a refund under Section 143(1D) of the Act. This attitude on the part of the Assessing Officer leaves us with a feeling (not based on any evidence) that the Officers of the Revenue seem to believe that it is not enough for the assessee to please the deity (Income Tax Act) but the assessee must also please the priest (Income Tax Officer) before getting what is due to him under the Act. The officers of the State must ensure that their conduct does not give rise to the above feeling even remotely

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

ITO vs. Intertoll ICS India Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Arbitrary action of the AO in treating the payment by the assessee to the AE as "excessive/ unreasonable" deplored. Whims and fancies of an AO cannot decide tax liability of an assessee. Either the AO was ignorant of the TP provisions or he was adamant to make the disallowance at any cost. Either way, his action cannot be endorsed

It is said that rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. In other words, rights demand that a person using his rights should also observe his duties. In taxation matters discretionary powers have been given to the AO’s but they are expected to use the power in a fair and just manner. State as an institution can levy and collect only due taxes from its subjects. So, if the AOs determine the tax liability in an unfair manner and if the demand is not of the DUE taxes appellate authorities are expected to allow relief to the assessee. He very well knew that the assessee had objected to the ad hoc disallowance and rejection of the CUP method. But, he stuck to his guns while submitting the remand report and supported the estimated disallowance. His approach goes against the very basis of the TP provisions. Either he was ignorant of the TP provisions or he was adamant to make the disallowance at any cost. But, his action cannot be endorsed. Why was the transaction entered in to by the AE with MIT Hungary could not be a basis for arriving at ALP was never discussed by the AO. The assessee has discharged his burden of proof. After that onus had shifted to the assessee and in our opinion he has failed miserably to prove that his action of making disallowance was supported by any logical argument or scientific basis. Whims and fancies of an AO cannot decide tax liability of an assessee

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Bayer CropScience Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): (i) Product Trial expenses of a new product is revenue in nature as it does not provide the assessee with any enduring benefit, (ii) Compensation paid to supplier to ensure goodwill and continued relationship is revenue expenditure

For allowing / disallowing any expenditure under Section 37 of the Act, the basic thing to be seen as to whether the expenditure was incurred for furtherance of business interest of the Assessee or not. It is a fact that in this case because of the expenditure incurred no new assets came into existence. The expenditure was incurred considering the old relation with the supplier and to avoid future business complications. If an assessee makes payment which is compensatory nature, it has to be allowed. In this case, the payment was made in pursuance of an agreement and that was of compensatory nature i.e.it was not penal, hence it was to be allowed

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

ACIT vs. M/s. BSR & Co (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): Payments by a CA firm to foreign professional entities for services rendered abroad is not taxable under Articles 12 and 15 of the India-USA DTAA. The retrospective amendment to s. 9(1)(vii) to tax services rendered outside India does not apply in the context of a disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in the hands of the payer

Ostensibly, the requirement of rendering services in India in order to attract section 9(1)(vii) of the Act was removed by insertion of Explanation by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1/4/1976. This has been understood by the Revenue to say that inspite of the services having been rendered by the recipients outside India, the same is taxable in India by applying the aforesaid amendment. In our view, such retrospective amendment would be determinative of the tax liability in the hands of the recipients of income. So however, in the present case, what is held against the assessee is the failure to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of such income. Ostensibly, dehors the aforesaid amendment, the impugned income was not subject to tax deduction at source in India as per the prevailing legal position. Taxability of a sum in the hands of recipient, on account of a subsequent retrospective amendment would not expose the assessee-payer to an impossible situation of requiring deduction of tax at source on the date of payment. Therefore, on this count also the assessee cannot be held to be in default in not deducting tax at source so as to trigger the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal