Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: Rajendra (AM)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by itatbar — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Arbitrary action of the AO in treating the payment by the assessee to the AE as "excessive/ unreasonable" deplored. Whims and fancies of an AO cannot decide tax liability of an assessee. Either the AO was ignorant of the TP provisions or he was adamant to make the disallowance at any cost. Either way, his action cannot be endorsed

It is said that rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. In other words, rights demand that a person using his rights should also observe his duties. In taxation matters discretionary powers have been given to the AO’s but they are expected to use the power in a fair and just manner. State as an institution can levy and collect only due taxes from its subjects. So, if the AOs determine the tax liability in an unfair manner and if the demand is not of the DUE taxes appellate authorities are expected to allow relief to the assessee. He very well knew that the assessee had objected to the ad hoc disallowance and rejection of the CUP method. But, he stuck to his guns while submitting the remand report and supported the estimated disallowance. His approach goes against the very basis of the TP provisions. Either he was ignorant of the TP provisions or he was adamant to make the disallowance at any cost. But, his action cannot be endorsed. Why was the transaction entered in to by the AE with MIT Hungary could not be a basis for arriving at ALP was never discussed by the AO. The assessee has discharged his burden of proof. After that onus had shifted to the assessee and in our opinion he has failed miserably to prove that his action of making disallowance was supported by any logical argument or scientific basis. Whims and fancies of an AO cannot decide tax liability of an assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): (i) Product Trial expenses of a new product is revenue in nature as it does not provide the assessee with any enduring benefit, (ii) Compensation paid to supplier to ensure goodwill and continued relationship is revenue expenditure

For allowing / disallowing any expenditure under Section 37 of the Act, the basic thing to be seen as to whether the expenditure was incurred for furtherance of business interest of the Assessee or not. It is a fact that in this case because of the expenditure incurred no new assets came into existence. The expenditure was incurred considering the old relation with the supplier and to avoid future business complications. If an assessee makes payment which is compensatory nature, it has to be allowed. In this case, the payment was made in pursuance of an agreement and that was of compensatory nature i.e.it was not penal, hence it was to be allowed

Read more ›

Posted on by itatbar — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Installation services provided by a foreign enterprise which are inextricably connected to the sale of goods are not assessable as "fees for technical services" or as "business profits" under the DTAA

Though service of installation is covered by the FTS clause as well as Installation PE clause of the India China treaty and though the installation contract (including period of after sales service) exceeded 183 days, the income from installation activity was neither taxable as FTS nor as business income since (i) the service of installation was inextricably connected to sale of goods, the same could not be treated as FIS or FTS (ii) specific installation PE clause in India China Treaty will override General FTS clause (iii) the aforesaid threshold limit of 183 days would have to be applied to the actual period of installation (which was less than 183 days) and not the contractual period

Read more ›

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 view full post with file download link
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

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. 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

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 4, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer pricing of AMP Expenditure: In the case of a manufacturer operating in a competitive industry, high AMP expenditure cannot be assumed to have been incurred for the benefit of the brand owner. The TPO has to prove that the real intention of the assessee in incurring AMP expenses was to benefit the AEs and not to promote its own business. Also, if the assessee has reported high turnover & profits & offered to tax, the basic ingredient required to invoke s. 92 that there is transfer of profit from India remains unproved. In the absence of the AO/ TPO showing that there is a formal/ informal agreement to share the AMP expenditure, the adjustment cannot be made. The matter cannot be remanded to the AO/ TPO for reconsideration

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, would have benefitted the AEs, who owned the brands used by the assessee. In our opinion, the arguments suffers from the very basic flaw that it presumes that the assessees would incur AMP not to promote its own business. In other words, the TPO has failed to prove that the real intention of the assessee in incurring advertisement and marketing expenses were to benefit the AEs and not to promote its own business. The turnover of the assessee proves that during the year under consideration the assessee had done a reasonably good business, as stated earlier. The resultant profit was offered for taxation in India. Therefore, transferring of profit from India, the basic ingredient to invoke the provisions of section 92 of the Act, remains unproved

Read more ›

Posted on by ksalegal — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Mutuality - TDR Premium

The learned CIT(A) relied on ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499/M/2011) & A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 500/M/2011) and held that TDR Premium received by Society from its members was not covered by principle of Mutuality. The Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 reversed the order of Learned CIT(A) and held that TDR premium will be covered by the principle of mutuality. Hence, ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499/M/2011) and A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 500/M/2011) in case of Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society is no longer good law.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 14, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1998-99
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vii)/ Article 12: “Startup services”, though technical in nature, are not assessable as “fees for technical services” u/s 9(1)(vii) if they do not involve any “construction, assembly mining or like projects”. The services are also not taxable under Article 12 as they do not “make available” technical knowledge

We are of the opinion that technical services or the start-up services, provided by the assessee, did not include any construction, assembly mining or like projects and therefore the payment received by it would not constitute FTS as per the provisions of the Act. Here, we would like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (243ITR459).In that case the assessee was engaged in the mining of lignite. It had entered in to an agreement with a Hungarian company for acquiring steam generating plant for more efficient running of its business. The AO held that income had accrued to Hungarian company in India and hence the Indian company was liable for deduction of tax. The Hon’ble court decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that receipts could not be brought to tax in India, that the payments made by it were not taxable under the provisions of section 9 of the Act. (Ichikawajama-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd (288 ITR 408) referred)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(22)(d)/ 46A: A buyback of shares u/s 77A of the Companies Act is not a reduction of capital u/s 100 - 104 of that Act. A buyback cannot be regarded as a "colourable transaction" and cannot be assessed as "deemed dividend" u/s 2(22)(d). The capital gains on buy-back are exempt under the India-Mauritius DTAA

Section 100-105 r.w.s. 391of the CA deal with reduction of capital and obtaining permission of the Court. Clearly, both deal with different situations. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dealt with the schemes of buyback of shares and reduction of capital in the case of Capgemini India Private Limited (Company Scheme Petition No.434 of 2014 dated 28.04.2015) where it was held that it is open to a company to buy back its own shares by following the procedure prescribed under section 77A/Section 68 or by following the procedure prescribed under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956, Act. The observations of the Hon’ble Court does not leave any doubt that buyback of shares cannot be equated with reduction of capital

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 1, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Sales/ Purchases: Addition solely on the basis of information received from the sales-tax department is not sustainable. Suspicion of the highest degree cannot take the place of evidence

AO had made the addition as one of the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. We agree that it was a good starting point for making further investigation and take it to logical end. But, he left the job at initial point itself. Suspicion of highest degree cannot take place of evidence. He could have called for the details of the bank accounts of the suppliers to find out as whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their account. We find that no such exercise was done

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: (i) If the AO & CIT make a mechanical reference to the TPO without applying mind to the TP report & other data filed by the assessee, the reference is invalid, (ii) A transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made if the assessee's income is exempt u/s 10A or 80HHE or (iii) if the AE is assessed at a rate of tax higher that tax rate in India

(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 by the assessee, or to any other material or information or document furnished. The TPO made an adjustment which was incorporated by the AO in the assessment order. Thereby, the AO as well as the CIT did not discharge necessary respective judicial functions conferred on them under sections 92C and 92CA of the Act;

(d) Further, the assessee is also correct in contending that no TP adjustment can be made in a case like the present one, where the assessee enjoys u/s 10A or 80HHE of the Act, or where the tax rate in the country of the Associated Enterprises is higher than the rate of tax in India and where the establishment of tax avoidance or manipulation of prices or establishment of shifting of profits is not possible.

Read more ›