| 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.
Leave a Reply