| 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…
- 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…
- 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.…
- Celltick Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Indian subsidiary of the assessee had for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y 2019-20 entered into an "APA‟ with the CBDT. As is discernible from the "APA‟, the functions of the subsidiary company inter alia included "marketing and sale of various software solutions" of the assessee company. As per the "APA‟…
- Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) As against the assessee's position, the primary material to make additions in the hands of assessee is the statement of Shri Vipul Bhat and the outcome of search proceedings on his associated entities including M/s SAL. However, there is nothing on record to establish vital link between the assessee group…
- Interactive Avenues Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Unless a claim for deduction in respect of payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited is made in the computation of business income, there cannot be any occasion for invoking section 40(a)(i) for its disallowance in computation of business income. As we have analyzed earlier also in this order, section 40(a)(i)…
Leave a Reply