Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › iPolicy Network Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

iPolicy Network Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 8, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (iPolicy_transfer_pricing_variation.pdf)


Transfer Pricing: CBDT’s view that +/-5% variation amendment applies to pending proceedings incorrect

In respect of AY 2006-07, the assessee entered into international transaction with its associate enterprises for a sum of Rs. 14.33 crores. The TPO applied the TNMM and determined the ALP at Rs. 15.08 crores and made an adjustment of Rs. 75 lakhs. The assessee claimed that as the said adjustment was within +/-5% of the ALP, no adjustment could be made under the proviso to s. 92C(2) as it stood pre-amendment by the F (No. 2) Act, 2009. The Department relied on Circular No.F.142/13/2010-SO (TPL) dated 30.9.2010 (Corrigendum) where the view was expressed that as the amendment came into effect from 1.10.2009, it would apply in relation to all cases in which proceedings are pending before the Transfer Pricing Officer on or after such date. HELD disagreeing with the Department’s contention:

While the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 provides that the substituted Proviso shall come into effect on 1.10.2009 and applies in respect of AY 2009-10 & subsequent years, the Explanatory Notes to the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 issued vide Circular No.5/2010 dated 3.6.2010 incorrectly states that the amendment comes into effect on 1.4.2009. In the Corrigendum, it is stated that the amendment shall apply to proceedings pending before the TPO on or after 1.10.2009. It is difficult to accept the argument of the Department that retrospective or prospective applicability of a provision should be decided in the manner explained by the CBDT. A procedural provision resulting in creating a new disability or which imposes a new duty in respect of transactions already completed cannot be applied retrospectively. As the amended Proviso brings about a substantial change in the relief available to an assessee, it cannot be treated as being retrospective in nature. Kuber Tobacco Products 117 ITD 273 (Del) (SB) & Ekta Promoters 113 ITD 719 (Del) (SB) followed

Related Judgements

  1. Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi 5 Member Spl Bench) 

    It is a precondition to invoking s. 158BD that the AO must, in the course of s. 158BC proceedings, record satisfaction that the income belongs to the other person. In the absence of such finding, s. 158BD cannot be invoked. The satisfaction must be objective and not subjective….
  2. Cebon India vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that…
  3. DaimlerChrysler India vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 

    Under Article 24 (4) of the India-Germany DTAA, Enterprises of India, the capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of Germany, cannot be subjected in India to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith which is other or…
  4. DCIT vs. Manjula Shah (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) 

    In accordance with the principles of purposive interpretation of statutes, Expl. (iii) to s. 48 has to be read to mean that the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed by taking into account the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner.Read more ›
  5. Goldcrest Exports vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    In the absence of a PE in India, the compensation awarded under the arbitration award was not taxable in India. Consequently, there was no obligation on the assessee to deduct tax u/s 195(1) and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) could be madeRead more ›

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*