Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: S. S. Godara (JM)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 15, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 268A: In view of CBDT's Circular no. 21/ 2015 dated 10.12.2015 appeals of the department where the monetary limit does not exceed Rs. 10 lakh have to be dismissed as a legal nullity. CBDT's decision termed as "paradigm shift", "unprecedented" and "possibly a game changing initiative heralding a new era in thoughtful litigation management"

We need to take note of a very pragmatic initiative, taken by the Central Board of Direct Taxes last week, for reducing litigation in direct taxes. Vide circular no. 21/ 2015 dated 10th December 2015, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has, inter alia, announced that, subject to certain exceptions- which are not relevant in the present context, henceforth, no departmental appeals will be filed against relief given by the CIT(A), before this Tribunal, unless the tax effect, excluding interest, exceeds Rs 10,00,000. What is even more important is that not only that such a taxpayer friendly measure will be implemented in all future tax litigation, even the pending appeals, wherever the tax involved in the appeals does not exceed Rs 10,00,000, shall not be pressed or withdrawn. In effect thus, irrespective of the year to which the departmental appeal before the Tribunal pertains, as long as such an appeal is pending before the Tribunal, this will be a legal nullity

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 3, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law on transfer pricing implications of (i) allowing excess credit to AE's on account of sale of goods and (ii) issue of corporate guarantee to AEs (after insertion of Explanation i(c) to s. 92B by FA 2012) explained

If the international transaction of exports of goods which has been benchmarked on TNMM basis is duly accepted by the TPO, making an adjustment for interest on excess credit allowed on sales to AEs will vitiate the picture, inasmuch as what has already been factored in the TNMM analysis, by taking operating profit figure which incorporate financial impact of the excess credit period allowed, will be adjusted again separately as well because the interest levy for late realization of debtors is inextricably connected with the sales and is also part of operating income. When such an interest is includible in operating income and the operating income itself has been accepted as reasonable under the TNMM, there cannot be an occasion to make adjustment for notional interest on delayed realization of debtors

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Even if the loan to the 100% subsidiary is intended to be a long term investment in the subsidiary and it has a crucial role to play in the assessee's business plans, it cannot be treated as "quasi capital". The ALP of the loan has to be determined on the basis of LIBOR interest

The expression ‘quasi capital’ is relevant from the point of view of highlighting that a quasi-capital loan or advance is not a routine loan transaction simplictor. The substantive reward for such a loan transaction is not interest but opportunity to own capital. As a corollary to this position, in the cases of quasi capital loans or advances, the comparison of the quasi capital loans is not with the commercial borrowings but with the loans or advances which are given in the same or similar situations

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB(10): To be the "developer" of a housing project, the assessee has to undertake the entrepreneurship risk in execution of the project. He need not be the owner of the land. S. 40(a)(ia): The amendment is clarificatory and retrospective w.e.f. 01.04.2005

In order to answer the question as to whether the condition precedent for deduction under section 80IB has been satisfied inasmuch as whether or not the assessee is engaged in “developing and building housing projects”, all that is material is whether assessee is taking the entrepreneurship risk in execution of such project. When profits or losses, as a result of execution of project as such, belong predominantly to the assessee, the assessee is obviously taking the entrepreneurship risk qua the project and is, accordingly, eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of the same. The assumption of such an entrepreneurship risk is not dependent on ownership of the land

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 24, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 25, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 255(4): Even if Third Member's verdict is shown to be “unsustainable in law and in complete disregard to binding judicial precedents”, Division Bench has no choice but to give effect to it

At the time of giving effect to the majority view under section 255(4), it cannot normally be open to the Tribunal to go beyond the exercise of giving effect to the majority views, howsoever mechanical it may seem. In the case of dissenting situations on the division bench, the process of judicial adjudication is complete when the third member, nominated by Hon’ble President, resolves the impasse by expressing his views and thus enabling a majority view on the point or points of difference. What then remains for the division bench is simply identifying the majority view and dispose of the appeal on the basis of the majority views. In the course of this exercise, it is not open to the division bench to revisit the adjudication process and start examining the legal issues

Read more ›