U/s 92B(1), the apportionment of cost is permissible only where there exists a “mutual agreement or arrangement” between two or more Associated Enterprises for apportionment of cost incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided to any one or more of such Enterprises. In the absence of such an agreement to share the costs incurred on the McKinsey study, the costs cannot be apportioned. The bare allegation that the AE’s had received “specific and identifiable benefits” is not sufficient to justify apportionment. Further, even assuming that the AEs were liable to compensate the assessee, the TPO ought to have determined the ALP of such “international transaction” after taking into consideration all the rights obtained and obligations incurred by the two entities, including the advantages obtained by the AEs. He ought to have identified comparables and recorded a finding that the consultancy charges were higher than what a similarly situated and comparable independent domestic entity would have incurred. In the absence of such exercise, the adjustment cannot be upheld

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

The law laid down in CIT vs. Shambhu Investment 249 ITR 7 (Cal) approved in 263 ITR 143 (SC) is that merely because income is attached to immovable property cannot be the sole factor for assessment of such income as income from property. What has to be seen is the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property. If the main intention is to let out the property, the income is assessable as “income from house property” while if the main intention is to exploit the immovable property by way of complex commercial activities, the income is assessable as business income {Sultan Brothers 51 ITR 353 (SC) explained as not being in conflict with Shambhu Investments 263 ITR 143 (SC)}

S. 14A uses the words “for the purpose of computing the total income under this Chapter ……. expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act”. Thus for the applicability of s. 14A there must be (a) taxable income and (b) tax-free income. If either one is absent, s. 14A has no applicability. If it is assumed that s. 14A would apply even when the assessee does not have tax-free income, the expenditure would get disallowed year after year so long as the assessee held the shares and if he sold them and made a capital gain, that would be taxed as well. This is not contemplated by s. 14A. If there is no claim for tax-free income, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A (Walfort Share and Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1 (SC), Godrej & Boyce 328 ITR 81 (Bom) & Winsome Textile 319 ITR 204 (P&H) referred)

S. 56(2)(v) exempts gifts from a “relative”. Though the definition of the term “relative” does not specifically include a Hindu Undivided Family, a ‘HUF” constitutes all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters. As all these persons fall in the definition of “relative”, an HUF is ‘a group of relatives’. As a gift from a “relative” is exempt, a gift from a ‘group of relatives’ is also exempt since the singular will include the plural