Search Results For: P. M. Jagtap


R.A.K. Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
TPO/ DRP's action of reducing the quantum of royalty paid to AE by applying the "benefit test" is surprising and improper

It is an accepted principle of law that TPO has to determine the ALP by adopting any one of the methods prescribed u/s 92C of the Act. Mode and manner of computation of ALP under different methods have been laid down in rule 10B. Even, assuming that TPO has followed CUP method for determining ALP of royalty payment, as held by ld. DRP, it needs to be examined if it is strictly in compliance with statutory provisions. Rule 10B(1)(a) lays down the procedure for determining ALP under CUP method

S. Uma Devi vs. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54F is a beneficial provision which has to be construed liberally. Even if construction/ purchase of new house is not completed within stipulated period, deduction is admissible if investment is made

If the assessee has invested the money in construction of residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition to be occupied within the period stipulated, that would not disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit under section 54F

Top