S. 115JB : Book profit– Not applicable to insurance companies.
ACIT v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 67 ITR 191 /195 TTJ 65 (UO) (Chennai)(Trib.)S. 115JB : Book profit– Not applicable to insurance companies.
ACIT v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 67 ITR 191 /195 TTJ 65 (UO) (Chennai)(Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s Length Price—royalty for use of brand name— Adjustments held to be not justified.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 191 TTJ 148 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s Length Price—AMP expenses incurred by MSIL could not be treated and categorized as international transaction- No adjustment can be made. [S. 92B]
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 191 TTJ 148 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer Pricing—Arm’s length price—Purchases of cars by assessee from RNAIPL would not come within meaning of international transaction-Marketing expenses-No addition can be made. [S. 92B]
Renault India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 193 TTJ 542 (Chennai)(Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing—adjustment—financial advisory solutions in the field of investment banking division–TNMM method entry level- Effective representation was not made before TPO or CIT(A) –Matter remanded to the AO / TPO.
Lehman Brothers Securities (P) Ltd v. DCIT (2018) 192 TTJ 58 (UO) (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer Pricing—Transport Segment-Import of raw materials and components-Import of finished goods-and Export of finished goods—Additional evidence was filed-Matter remanded.
Carrier Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 172 DTR 49 / 195 TTJ 777 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing—Comparables—Functionally indifferent companies cannot be selected as good comparable-Asset management company cannot be compared with market support services.
Philip Morris Services India S.A. v. ACIT (2018) 172 DTR 192 / 66 ITR 97 / (2019) 197 TTJ 128 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Notional interest– Loan to AE–Estimate of interest at 11% was held to be not valid when the assessee had charged the interest at 8%-Rule of consistency is followed–Bench mark transaction-Cup method–Adjustment made was deleted–Ad hoc method cannot be applied. [S. 92CA] .
DCIT v. Emami Limited. (2018) 171 DTR 361 / 196 TTJ 570 (Kol.)(Trib.)S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus Purchases-Raw material-Survey-Letters were issued to the purchasers after five years of end of assessment year-purchasers are witness of department and did not turn of for cross examination- Inspectors report was not confronted to the assessee- Deletion of addition was held to be justified. [S. 133A, 143(3), 145]
Dy.CIT v. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 171 DTR 83 / 195 TTJ 649 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 69 : Unexplained investment –Undisclosed income-Merely on the basis of AIR information and ITS data addition cannot be made. [S.131, 133(6), 143(3)]
Dy.CIT v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India (P) Ltd. (2018) 193 TTJ 65 (UO) (Mum.)(Trib.)