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

Home › All Judgements › DCIT vs. Alstom Projects Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

DCIT vs. Alstom Projects Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by itatbar — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
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. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee pursuant to the terms of the "agreement‟ had only received standard facilities i.e bandwith services from RJIPL. In fact, as observed by the CIT(A), the assessee only had an access to services and did not have any access to any equipment deployed by RJIPL for providing the bandwith…
  • DCIT vs. Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Even amendment to section 68 brought by Finance Act, 2012 does not refer to valuation. The insertion of the proviso to section 68 of the Act by Finance Act, 2012 casts an additional onus on the closely held companies to prove source in the shareholders subscribing to the shares of…
  • Sachin R. Tendulkar vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Therefore, it is not at all relevant as to whether the property was let out in past or not. These words do not talk of actual let out also but talk about the intention to let out. If the property is held by the owner for letting out and efforts…
  • 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…
  • Concept Communication Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Retraction being on affidavit was legal and valid and was not belated. Further retraction was supported by explanation of impounded documents to the Survey team. The impounded document did not contain any information which was not recorded in the books of accounts. Hence, in view of retraction and such retraction…

Related Judgements

  1. DCIT vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 

    (c) The AO erred in not himself examining the issue of Transfer Pricing and with the approval of the CIT, made a reference to the TPO u/s 92CA(1) of the Act; that the AO as well as the CIT failed to apply their mind to the TP Report filed…
  2. ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The reassessment order is as a result of violation of the natural principle of audi alteram partem. A statement recorded at the back of a party cannot be used against such party without confronting such statement to the party. Hence, on this score alone, the reassessment order is unsustainable…
  3. ITO vs. Indore Steel and Iron Mills Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 

    However, again, it cannot be denied that per the said decision, which is judicially binding on us, the hon’ble court has abundantly clarified that the deduction in respect of the employee’s contribution (to the employee welfare funds) in the hands of the assessee-employer is governed by the provision of…
  4. Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The assessee only received Rs.1,82,362 as dividend income, therefore, there is no question of disallowance of Rs.14,58.412 by invoking section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income.Read more ›
  5. LÓreal India Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    In these circumstances, the fundamental question to be answered is to decide as to whether in absence of any agreement for payment of AMP expenses by the AEs can it be held that there was an international transaction only on the basis that AMP expenditure, incurred by the assessee,…

Leave a Reply

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

*