Search Results For: Rano Jain


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 1, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 12, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06 to 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Statements recorded u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. A copy of the statement together with the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent has to provided to the assessee. If the statement is retracted and/or if cross-examination is not provided, the statement has to be discarded. The onus of ensuring the presence of the deponent cannot be shifted to the assessees. The onus is on the Revenue to ensure his presence

A copy of the statement of Mr. Tarun Goyal, recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act, was not provided to the Assessees. Mr. Tarun Goyal was also not offered for the cross-examination. The remand report of the AO before the CIT(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the Assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the Assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the Assessees. The onus was on the Revenue to ensure his presence. Apart from the fact that Mr. Tarun Goyal has retracted his statement, the fact that he was not produced for cross-examination is sufficient to discard his statement. Statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 20, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08, 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Transactions of providing support services to “Sogo shosha” entities cannot be characterized as trading transaction for purposes of comparison and determining ALP and the cost of sales cannot be included

The activities of purchase and sale i.e. trading involves risk and finance whereas in the activity of support services i.e. intending transactions the assessee has neither to incur any financial obligation nor carries any significant risk. The nature of two activities is absolutely different. The activities of trading i.e. purchase and sale are highly insignificant as compared to activity of support service which constitutes the core business activities of the assessee. The TPO and DRP are wrong in applying the trading margins ignoring the facts of the case that the assessee being a service provider the trading margins cannot be applied. Further, the TPO DRP have gone wrong in including the cost of sales in OP/TC ignoring the fact the value of the sale under no circumstances effects the activities of the assessee company, a service provider. For support services the correct method is the TNMM and the assessee has computed the same on the basis of OP/TC. The OECD guidelines also supports this contention that in TP study business transactions cannot be recharacterized. The support service or intending provided by the assessee company is nothing but a trading facilitation both in form and substance

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43(5)(d): Loss from trading in derivatives is not a speculation loss and can be set-off against normal business profits

Now question arises as to whether the loss suffered by the assessee on derivative was to be treated as a speculative loss or to be set off against the regular business profit. Explanation to clause (d) of Sub-section (5) to Section 43 of the Act provides that eligible transaction in respect of trading in derivatives would not be deemed to be speculative transaction. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was engaged in the business of dealing in shares & securities and has incurred loss from dealing in derivatives (shares futures)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15): Fees or consideration received for rendition of a service to business, trade or commerce will not attract the disability under first proviso to s. 2(15) if such service is subservient to the charitable cause and is not in the nature of business itself

Even in a situation in which an assessee receives a fees or consideration for rendition of a service to the business, trade or commerce, as long as such a service is subservient to the charitable cause and is not in the nature of business itself, the disability under second limb of first proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play