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 › Pankaj Extrusion Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

Pankaj Extrusion Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 2, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (pankaj_extrusion_DRP_TP_void.pdf)


S. 144C order cannot be passed if no transfer pricing adjustments made by TPO

The TPO passed an order u/s 92CA (3) stating that the transactions with affiliated enterprises were at arms’ length and no transfer pricing adjustments were to be made. Pursuant to that the AO passed a draft assessment order u/s 144C. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the draft assessment order. HELD upholding the challenge:

U/s 144C(1) the AO has to pass a draft assessment order in the case of an “eligible assessee” which is defined in s. 144C(15)(i) to mean any person in whose case the variation from returned income arises as a consequence of the order of the TPO u/s 92CA(3). As no transfer pricing adjustments had been made by the TPO, the assessee was not an “eligible assessee” and the AO had no jurisdiction to pass the draft assessment order.

Note: In Ericsson AB vs. ADIT the assessee, being a foreign company, would have continued to be an “eligible assessee” even though the TPO had not made any adjustments

Related Judgements

  1. FGP Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Though the assessee was following the mercantile system and was entitled to royalty under an agreement, the royalty was not assessable in accordance with the principles of real income, in view of the dispute pending in arbitration.
    Read more ›
  2. CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast (Bombay High Court Full Bench) 

    In Shruti Colorants a Division Bench held that where there was a delay in filing Appeals u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act (= s. 260A of the IT ACT), the Court had no power to condone the delay by taking recourse to s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
     
    This…
  3. EMA India vs. ACIT (Allahabad High Court) 

    The judgement of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 where it was held that when an order u/s 143 (3) is passed, a presumption is raised that it has been passed on application of mind and that…
  4. Mercedes Benz vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    The view taken by the Tribunal is not the correct approach. If the Tribunal wanted to differ to the earlier view taken by the Tribunal in the identical set of facts, judicial discipline required reference to the larger bench. One co-ordinate bench finding fault with another co-ordinate bench is…
  5. Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    On facts, the argument that the transaction involved merely a sale of a share of a foreign company by one non-resident to another is not acceptable. It would be simplistic to assume that the entire transaction between the non-residents was fulfilled merely upon the transfer of a single share…

Leave a Reply

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

*