Month: May 2013

Archive for May, 2013


COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 6, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The assessee exported tea to Iraq under the ‘Oil for Food Program’, as sanctioned by the United Nations. It paid commission of Rs 1.28 crores to one Alia Transportation, a Jordanian company. The Volcker Committee, which was set up to expose the ‘Oil for Food scam’ found that this company was a front company for the Iraqi regime, meant to receive illegal kickbacks, and did not render any services. The AO, acting on the report, held that the commission paid by the assessee was “illegal” and not allowable under the Explanation to s. 37(1). This was reversed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, the Tribunal (72 DTR 425) upheld the stand of the assessee on the ground that even if the amounts paid to Alia were actually kickbacks to Iraqi regime, that fact per se would not attract Explanation to s. 37(1). It was pointed out that while the transactions between Alia and the Iraqi regime may be contrary to the UN sanctions, the transactions between the assessee and Alia were not hit by the UN sanctions and that there was no specific violation of law by the assessee. It was emphasized that what the recipient of the payment does is not important because the assessee has no control over the matter. The onus of demonstrating that the assessee was aware that the payments were intended for kickbacks is on the AO which has not been discharged. It was held that the “purpose” of the expenditure has to be seen and if the payment is for bonafide business purposes, the fact that they end up being used as illegal kickbacks, will not attract Explanation to s. 37(1). On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 3, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Though s. 92B(2) provides for a situation where even a transaction between two non-associated enterprises can be subject to the transfer pricing provisions, it is essential that there should first be an “AE” with whom there exists an “international transaction” before it can be examined whether the international transaction with the “the non-AE” exists or not. On facts, the agreement between the two foreign companies was independent of the agreement between the two Indian domestic companies. The assessee had full authorization to perform and take its own decision with regard to the sale of the imaging segment to the buyer. Even if one accepts that the sale agreement by the assessee was as the result of prior agreement or was consequential upon the agreement between the two non resident companies, yet, as the holding company had not dictated the terms and conditions of the sale and the entire exercise of transfer of imaging segment was independently done on its own terms by the assessee and the buyer, the deeming provision of s. 92B(2) does not apply. The Department’s argument that the legal character of the assessee and the other enterprise be disregarded due to the influence of the agreement between the foreign holding companies is not acceptable (Vodafone vs. UOI 341 ITR 1 (SC) followed)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 2, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Though in Capgemini it was held that the concept of economy of scale is relevant only for manufacturing concerns, which have high fixed assets, and not for service concerns and that the turnover filter cannot be applied to exclude companies with an extremely large turnover from comparison, a contrary view has been taken in Deloitte Consulting 145 TTJ 589 (Hyd) that “giant” companies like Wipro are not at all comparable with smaller “pygmy” companies. Consequently, giant companies line Wipro and Infosys cannot be taken as comparables as their turnover is multiple number of times higher compared to that of the assessee and the TPO erred in considering their PLI to arrive at the arithmetic mean

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 1, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 149 (1) (b) provides that no notice u/s 148 shall be issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant AY unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to Rs. 1 lakh or more. Under the proviso to s. 151 (1), no notice u/s 148 can be issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY unless the CCIT/ CIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for issue of such notice. Accordingly, it is imperative that the AO should state in the recorded reasons that the escaped income is likely to be Rs.1 Lakh or more so that the sanctioning authority is aware that it has exercised power of extended period of limitation u/s 149 (1) (b) and applies its mind accordingly. A sanction given without being aware of this fact is not valid. On facts, as there is nothing in the recorded reasons to suggest that the income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment is Rs. one lakh or more, the reopening is not valid