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.
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.
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Functionally different company cannot be selected as a comparable for arriving ALP of an international transaction.
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.
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.
S. 68 : Cash credits-No return was filed by the lenders-Matter is remanded to prove creditworthiness of lender.
S. 68 : Cash credits–Share application–Non–resident–Having meagre income–Credit worthiness not proved–Addition is held to be justified.
S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital and premium-issue of share premium is not relevant for cash credits-Identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of parties established -Deletion of addition is held to be justified.
S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money–Natural justice violated -Examining such persons in Kolkata at back of assessee would be clear violation of principles of natural justice—Matter remanded. [S. 131]
S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house–Property purchased in the name of wife–Loan was sanctioned in the name of wife – Not entitle to exemption. [S. 45]