Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


ACIT v. Gurudatta Shikshan Sanstha. (2018) 168 ITD 191 /192 TTJ 191 /165 DTR 70 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 115BBC : Anonymous donations – Donor denied having given any donation to trust hence addition was held to be justified [ S. 10(23C) ]

Finnish Fund For Industrial Co-Operation Ltd., In Re (2018) 402 ITR 373/ 301 CTR 705/ 164 DTR 105 (AAR)

S. 112 : Tax on long term capital gains -Non-residents – Concessional rate of tax — Long-term capital gains arising on sale of equity shares in Indian listed company to be taxed at 10.506 Per Cent., inclusive of surcharge and cess . [ S. 45 ]

DCIT v. Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd. (2018) 168 ITD 1 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 94 : Transaction in securities –loss on shares- Avoidance of tax by certain transactions in (Purchase and sale of bonds) –Transaction was not in the course of business hence provision of S.94(1) can not be applied [ S. 94(4) ]

Tata Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 168 ITD 340/ 164 DTR 17/ 192 TTJ 541 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 93 : Transactions resulting in transfer – Non-residents -Capital gains- For invoking S.93 to tax a resident, there should be transfer of assets by a resident to non-resident, and not where a non-resident had transferred assets to a resident- DTAA- India – Mauritius [ S. 90, 201(1), 201(IA) , Art ,13(4) ]

DCIT v. Verisign Services India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 315 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Selection of comparables — Various methods explained .

PCIT v. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd( 2018) 164 DTR 245/302 CTR 131/( 2019) 410 ITR 373 . (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

S.92C: Transfer pricing- Arm’s Length Price –Unless it is not shown that the selection of TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method is perverse, the same cannot be challenged.

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT( 2018) 169 ITD 345/ 168 DTR 257/ 192 TTJ 105 ( Ahd)(Trib) www.itatonline.org

S.92B: Transfer pricing – International transaction – Termination of option rights under an agreement can be treated as a “deemed international transaction”- Transfer pricing provision was held to be applicable and addition was held to be justified . Transfer of its unexercised call option right to nominate is held to be liable to capital gain tax . [ S. 2(47),92C ,92F]

Calance Software Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2018) 92 taxmann.com 164( Delhi)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 92CA: Reference to transfer pricing officer – CBDT’s Instruction No. 3/2003 is binding on the AO. Consequently, the ALP of international transactions where the quantum is less than Rs. 5 crore has to be determined by the AO and cannot be referred to the TPO. If such reference is made, it is invalid and the extended time for completing the assessment is not available to the AO. The assessment is void as it is time-barred [ S.119, 144C ]

CIT v. J.P.Morgan India ( P) Ltd ( 2018) 161 DTR 398/ 304 CTR 686 ( Bom) (HC)

S.92C: Transfer pricing – Arm’s Length Price – Difference in function performed and risk undertaken – Difference in brokerage charged to related and un related parties –Deletion of addition was held to be justified

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd ( 2018) 161 DTR 420 /( 2019) 410 ITR 468 ( Bom) (HC)Matter remanded to High Court, CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd ( 2019) 410 ITR 466 /175 DTR 1/ 307 CTR 121 (SC)

S.92C: Transfer pricing – Arm’s Length Price – Corporate guarantee- When no expenditure was incurred for providing guarantee to bank for the loan given to subsidiaries applying the rate of 2.5% by the TPO was held to be not justified .