Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


Dy.CIT v.Libra Techon Ltd. (2018) 195 TTJ 105 (UO) / 53 CCH 472 /67 ITR 14 (SN)(Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of Accounting – Percentage completion method – Accepted by department in earlier year, then there is no reason for AO to deviate from that method.

DCIT v. Jaipur Rugs Co. P. Ltd. (2018) 193 TTJ 49 (UO) / 64 ITR 128 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-In terms of sub-section (1) of section 144C, issuance of draft assessment order is a sine qua non before Assessing Officer can pass a regular assessment order under section 143(3). [S. 143(3), 292B]

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 193 TTJ 618 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book Profit–Provision for warranty-Followed scientific method and had considered historical data to arrive at correct book profit- Addition of provision for warranty would not be justified.

L&T Finance Ltd. (2018) 62 ITR 298 /192 TTJ 9 (UO) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book Profit – Exempt income -No disallowance to be made under S. 14A while computing book profit. [S. 14A]

Dy.CIT v. Mercedes-Benz India (P) Ltd. (2018) 196 TTJ 464 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price – In order to analyze ALP of international transactions, closely linked transactions were to be adopted as one transaction in order to carry out TP analysis by applying any of the prescribed methods as appropriate method-Matter remanded.

DCIT v. Kalyani Hayes Lemmerz Ltd. (2018) 193 TTJ 938 /167 DTR 36 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price – Royalty paid to associated enterprises was same as assessed when it was an independent entity – No adjustment to be made.

Dy. CIT v. Microsoft India (R&D) (P) Ltd. (2018) 171 DTR 121 / 196 TTJ 137 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – comparables- Segmental information is not provided by company in respect of software services, same could not be included as a good comparable-Functionally indifferent companies cannot be selected as good comparable- Fact that a company had a high or low turnover could be no reason to justify its exclusion if it was otherwise functionally comparable.

India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 64 ITR 9 (SN)/ 95 taxmann.com 21 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 92B : Transfer pricing–International Transaction–Advertising Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses is not an international transaction- Adjustment is held to be not justified. [S. 92C]

DCIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 19 (SN) (Raipur) ( Trib)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Captive consumption-Power supplied to its divisions -Market value of power supplied to others to be charged

DCIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 19(SN) (Raipur) ( Trib)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Loss of an eligible industrial unit is not required to be set-off against profit of other eligible unit