Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. DCIT (2018) 169 DTR 137 / 195 TTJ 125 (Asr.)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake–Refund of excise duty –Interest subsidy – Capital receipt. [S.145A]

Kailash Sharma v. ITO (2017) 49 CCH 545 / (2018) 163 DTR 130/ 192 TTJ 488 (Asr.) (Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Notice issued in the name of individual- Sanction was obtained in the name of firm-Reassessment is held to be bad in law –Not curable defects. [S. 148, 292BB]

Scrabble Entertainment Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 169 DTR 51 / 193 TTJ 418 ( Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Adjustments towards disallowance of amortization of subsidized cost-Different treatment given in the books of account-Adjustment is held to be not valid.

Schutz Dishman Biotech P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 196 TTJ 10 (UO) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing—Selection of Comparables—Turnover filter— Analysis that smaller companies having less turnover could not be considered as comparable with assessee—Similarly, company who had more turnover than assessee could not be compared with assessee.

Pitney Bowes Software India (P.) Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2018) 165 DTR 81 / 192 TTJ 778 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S.92C: Transfer pricing—Provision of software development services-Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking its international transaction of Provision of software development services-Working capital adjustment–Matter remanded.

Philips Medical Systems Private Ltd (now merged with Philips Electronics India Ltd.). v. ITO (2018) 196 TTJ 1031 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Functionally different company cannot be selected as a comparable for arriving ALP of an international transaction.

MSD Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Add.CIT (2018) 162 DTR 149 / 191 TTJ 702 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Protective assessment by invoking Brightline method-Concept of ‘protective assessment’, as known to income tax law, had no application to assessee’s case- Merely because a binding judicial precedent from jurisdictional High Court had been challenged by revenue authorities before Supreme Court-Binding nature of a judicial precedent, as long as it hold field i.e. was not overturned, remained unaffected-Addition is deleted.

Motorola Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2018) 165 DTR 122/ 193 TTJ 610 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Capital or revenue-Adjustment On account of Advertisement, marketing and promotion (AMP) expenses- Roughly 60% of bills were furnished to AO in original proceedings- Matter remanded to AO for verification.

JCIT. v. Sardar Patel Institute Of Management Society (2017) 51 CCH 727/ (2018) 191 TTJ 41 (UO) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-No return was filed by the lenders-Matter is remanded to prove creditworthiness of lender.

ITO v. Spartacus Farms (P) Ltd. (2018) 166 DTR 49 / 193 TTJ 409 ( Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits–Share application–Non–resident–Having meagre income–Credit worthiness not proved–Addition is held to be justified.