| COURT: |
ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: |
A. D. Jain (JM), Rajendra (AM) |
| SECTION(S): |
43B, 72A, 92C, Rule 9C |
| GENRE: |
Domestic Tax, Transfer Pricing |
| CATCH WORDS: |
Carry forward of losses., TP Adjustment only on AE transactions, Unpaid Service Tax |
| COUNSEL: |
Sunil Moti Lala |
| DATE: |
October 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
May 26, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
2007-08 & 2008-09 |
| FILE: |
Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: |
|
|
(i) Important law laid down on applicability of transfer pricing provisions to non-AEs, Law on (ii) deductibility of unpaid service-tax u/s 43B and (iii) carry forward of losses of amalgamating company u/s 72A and Rule 9C explained |
The Tribunal held that
1. TP adjustment was to be restricted only to AE transactions despite the fact that assessee carried out benchmarking at entity level;
2. Revenue’s contention that DRP erred in admitting additional evidence (which was not produced by assessee before AO) in violation of Rule 46A, was invalid since Rule 46A is not applicable to DRP proceedings
3. Disallowance of unpaid service tax could not be made under section 43B where the assessee did not claim the same in its Profit and Loss account.
4. Where the assessee fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under Section 72A read with Rule 9C, the AO could not deny the claim of carry forward of losses pertaining to the amalgamating company.
Related Posts:
- DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
- DCIT vs. Comet Investment Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The broker, through whom the assessee carried on share transactions, were also not imposed any penalty. No co-relation between the assessee on the one hand and the other parties on the other hand has been brought on record to co-relate that the parties to whom the alleged profits or loss…
- Renu T Tharani vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee before us is closely involved with the transaction and it is inconceivable that the assessee will have no direct knowledge of the owners of the underlying company and settlors of the trust which has her, as she herself puts it, as beneficiary of such a huge amount. This…
- ING Bewaar Maatschappij I BV vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The principle emerging out of this analysis of legal position is that when an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection. Viewed thus, this is…
- Narang Access Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) While valuing the share premium and to determine the fair market value of shares in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the assessee has option for adoption of valuation method and the basis of valuation has to be DCF method. The Hon’ble Bombay High court in Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd…
- Carestream Health Inc vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The ld DR vehemently argued that the percentage of shareholding remains the same because reduction of shares had happened for all shareholders. We find that the ld DR relied on para 24 of the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in 133 ITD 1 supra to support his proposition.…
Leave a Reply