Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Veolia India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 528 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Rehabilitation and implementation of water supply-Percentage of contract method adopted by the assessee is held to be justified.

Ramanlal K. Darji v. ITO (2020) 184 ITD 408 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Rejection of books of account without providing an opportunity is held to be not valid-Cash credits-Rejection of documents without any reason is held to be not justified-Matter remanded. [S. 68]

Genpact India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 1 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Amalgamation-Succession to business otherwise than on death-Amalgamating company was not in existence at time of conduct of assessment proceedings as well as on date of passing Assessment Order-Assessment Order passed in name of amalgamating company being void ab initio was to be set aside. [S. 170, 292B]

Zaveri & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 777 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Computation for purpose of clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without restoring to computation as contemplated under section 14A, read with rule 8D. [S. 14A, R. 8D]

Dy.CIT v. Yahoo Software Development (P.) Ltd. (2020) 80 ITR 528 / 184 ITD 305/ 196 DTR 241/208 TTJ 1072 (Bang.) (Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Additional revenue on account of subsequent realization of export-Addition cannot be made while computing book profit. [S. 10A]

Sava Healthcare Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 312 / 189 DTR 1 / 78 ITR 65 (SN) / 204 TTJ 513 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer-There was no transfer pricing adjustment of more than 10 crores in earlier year-Assessing Officers reference to TPO was in contravention to Instruction No. 3 of 2016 and such reference was to be declared as invalid. [S. 92C]

Khazanah India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 184 ITD 890 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-company engaged in the business of investment banking, merchant banking, merger and acquisition, private equity, syndication, etc. cannot be compared to non-binding investment advisory service provider.

Sony Pictures Networks India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 794 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-A company engaged in distribution of software product could be accepted as valid comparable.

Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 714 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-TNMM method-constantly accepted to be Most Appropriate Method-TNMM would be appropriate methodology-Corporate guarantee-Spread rate would be applied to gross amount of guarantee, and not on actual loan availed by AE.

Mott MacDonald (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 184 ITD 656 / 190 DTR 21 / 206 TTJ 30 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Volume difference in transaction values, funding issues, environmental issues, geographical location of clients and alleged differences in FAR without specifying same were held not grounds to reject CPM method and adopt TNMM method in oil and gas sector-Appellate Tribunal-Period of 90 days for pronouncement of orders after date of hearing is to be computed by excluding period during which nationwide COVID 19 pandemic lockdown was in force. [S. 255, ITAT R. 34]