Home ›

Search Results For: Ketan Ved

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 28, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The assessee has the choice to choose a prescribed method for ascertaining the market value of the shares transferred. If the assessee has chosen one method of valuation provided under Rule 11UA (i.e. DCF method), the AO has no power or jurisdiction to change that method to another method (All imp judgements referred)

Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But, the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares. In our opinion, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular system, especially the Act allows to choose one of the two methods. Until and unless the legislature amends the provision of the Act and prescribes only one method for valuation of the shares, the assessee are free to adopt any one of the methods

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 27, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92C/ Rule 10B: If the TPO is not satisfied with the assessee's method of benchmarking royalty payments, he should independently benchmark the ALP by adopting any one of the prescribed methods. He cannot determine The ALP at nil on an ad-hoc basis. TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of royalty and not the CUP method. If an authority like the RBI or Commerce Ministry has approved the rate of royalty, it carries persuasive value that the rate is at ALP

The Transfer Pricing Officer has not proceeded to benchmark the payment of royalty by applying any of the prescribed methods provided under the statute. Without assigning any reason, the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm’s length price of the royalty payment at nil. Prima-facie, it appears, the determination of arm’s length price of royalty payment at nil by the Transfer Pricing Officer is completely on ad-hoc basis without following the due process of law as provided under the statute

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 15, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 16, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 92: The information given by DIT (Inv) can only be a basis to ignite/ trigger "reason to suspect". The AO has to carry out further examination to convert the "reason to suspect" into "reason to believe". If the AO acts on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind, the reopening is void (All judgements considered)

Allegations leveled by DIT (Inv.) can only raise suspicion in the mind of the AO which is not the sufficient/requirement of law for reopening of assessment. The ‘reasons to believe’ is not synonymous to ‘reason to suspect’. ‘Reason to suspect’ based on an information can trigger an enquiry to find out whether there is any substance or material to substantiate that there is merit in the information adduced by the DIT(Inv.) and thereafter the AO has to take an independent decision to re-open or not. And the AO should not act on dictate of any other authority like in this case DIT(Inv.) because then it would be borrowed satisfaction

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(22)(e) Deemed Dividend: The argument of the Dept, based on Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs CIT 77 TM.com 71 (SC), that even though the assessee-recipient of money is neither the registered nor the beneficial shareholder of the payer company, the money should be assessed as "deemed dividend" is not correct (Scope of Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs CIT explained)

So far as the reliance placed by the Revenue on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal and Sons (HUF) (supra) is concerned, the same, in our view, is quite inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Firstly, the assessee before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was a HUF and the issue was as to whether the loans and advances received by the HUF could be treated as ‘deemed dividend’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. Notably, in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the payment was made by the company to the HUF and the shares in the company were held by the karta of the HUF. It is in this context that the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the addition in the hands of the HUF as factually the HUF was the beneficial shareholder

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 14, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: Even if there is lack of inquiry by the AO and the assessment order is "erroneous" under Explanation 2 to s. 263, the order is not "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" because Fringe Benefit Tax is not "tax" as defined in s. 2(43) and cannot be disallowed u/s 40(a)(v) or added back to "Book Profits" u/s 115JB

The only question that survives for our consideration is that whether the omission to carry out the stated adjustment in the Book profits as envisaged by Ld. CIT has made the quantum order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and whether the stated adjustment as suggested by Ld. CIT was tenable in law or not? In other words, we are concerned with whether the twin prime conditions viz. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for invoking the provisions of Section 263 was fulfilled in the instant case or not

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 16, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 12, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: In the case of an assessee engaged in distribution activity there is no value addition to the product in question even if the selling and marketing expenses are borne by the assessee. Accordingly, the Resale Price Method is the most appropriate method for bench marking the transaction and determining whether it is at arms' length. The TPO is not entitled to thrust TNMM to evaluate the transaction

It is settled legal position at the various Benches of the Tribunal that, in case of distribution activity, even when there are selling and marketing expenses are borne by the assessee, there cannot be any value addition to the product in question. In such cases, Resale Price Method is the most appropriate one and accordingly we reverse the decision given by the AO/TPO/DRP in thrusting on the assessee the TNM method to the transaction under consideration

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 21, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: An order of revision which does not show independent application of mind by the CIT is against the spirit of the Act and liable to be set aside

The order of the Assessing Officer may be brief and cryptic but that by itself is not sufficient reason to hold that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is for the Commissioner to point out as to what error was committed by the Assessing Officer in taking a particular view. In the case in hand, the Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to point out error in the assessment order. For invoking revisionary powers the Commissioner of Income Tax has to exercise his own discretion and judgment. Here the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked the provisions of section 263 at the mere suggestion of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, without exercising his own discretion and judgment. In view of the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked the provisions of section 263 without applying his own independent judgment and merely at the behest of proposal forwarded by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax is against the spirit of Act. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside

Read more ›