Home ›

Search Results For: G. S. Sandhawalia J.

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 6, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Rule 10A(d): Law on when multiple transactions can be regarded as a single composite transaction for determining arm’s length price explained. Fact that a transaction results in a profit or a loss has no bearing on whether it is at arm’s length price

The answer to the issue whether a transaction is at an arm’s length price or not is not dependent on whether the transaction results in an increase in the assessee’s profit. A view to the contrary would cause considerable confusion and lead to arbitrary, if not illogical, results. A view to the contrary would then raise a question as to the extent of profitability necessary for an assessee to establish that the transaction was at an arm’s length price. A further question that may arise is whether the arm’s length price is to be determined in proportion to the extent of profit. Thus, while profit may reflect upon the genuineness of an assessee’s claim, it is not determinative of the same

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 31, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 36(1)(iii): In a case where advances for non-business purposes are made from mixed funds, neither the AO nor the assessee can claim that the funds have come from a particular source and so the disallowance should be worked out on the basis of the average interest rate

The judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana vs. M/s Abhishek Industries, Ludhiana [2006] 286 ITR 1 (P&H) does not deal with the question of the rate of interest to be applied in cases where the assessee has mixed funds available with it. We also agree with the Tribunal’s view that where mixed funds are diverted towards interest free advances the disallowance should be made up to the level of the average cost of debt to the assessee. There is no justification in taking into consideration the rate of interest in respect of any particular transaction where under an assessee avails advances on interest. An assessee may avail several advances from the same lender or from different lenders and at varying rates of interest. In the absence of anything to indicate that the interest free advance was made only from a particular corresponding advance received by the assessee, the advance made by the assessee would obviously be from the common pool of money. Money lying in a common pool has no identity. The various amounts advanced to the assessee get merged into a common pool. There is no justification then either for the assessee or for the department to take into consideration the rate of interest in respect of a particular advance or advances to the assessee. The only logical approach is to take into consideration the average interest rate at which the assessee has availed of the advances

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): Argument that the disallowance for want of TDS can be made only for amounts "payable" as of 31st March and not for those already "paid" is not correct. In Liminie dismissal of SLP in Vector Shipping does not mean Supreme Court has confirmed the view of the HC. However, ITAT to consider whether payees have already paid tax

The argument that section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts which are “payable” and not to amounts that are already “paid” is also not acceptable (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Crescent Export Syndicate (2013) 216 Taxman 258 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sikandar Khan N. Tunwar (2013) 357 ITR 312 (Guj) followed)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 15, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1994-95
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Where the agreement between the parties (for sale of shares) indicates that the lump-sum consideration was in respect of two or more promises (i.e. sale of shares & non-compete covenant), it is liable to be bifurcated and apportioned between each of the assets (Vodafone distinguished)

It is difficult to understand how the mere fact that the parties have not apportioned the consideration between the two assets which were being dealt with by this agreement can make any difference to the rights of the parties. The position might have been different if the market value of the shares could not be ascertained. Then it might be said that it is difficult to put a proper value upon the shares and to put a proper value for the consideration. But when the market value is available and when it is known for what price these shares could be purchased or sold, there is no difficulty whatsoever in the apportionment

Read more ›