Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 219 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTTP adjustment - scope of Mutually Agreed Procedure (MAP)for determining the tax between India & USA - ALP determination in MAP regarding US & non US based transactions - MAP being a non-adjudicatory process have role in ALP determination u/s 92C - HELD THAT:- The position projected by the learned Counsel for the assessee is correct, however, this was the situation for the later assessment year and cannot be accepted for the present assessment year. In our opinion, two significant features therefore arise in the present Appeal; firstly, the MAP has been drawn after the consideration of relevant aspects giving rise to transfer pricing adjustment and secondly, the CBDT in the later year agreed that such transfer pricing consideration in relation to US based transactions can be safely adopted for the purpose of the assessee's non-US based transactions. In the present year, therefore it would be wholly inappropriate to allow the revenue to argue to the contrary. Exemption u/s 10A allowable prior to the setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation - HELD THAT:- The issue stands covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Treatment to interest income as business income and consequently eligible for deduction under Section 10A - interest on tax refund - HELD THAT:- Issue of interest on tax refund not to be treated as interest on deposits was not agitated by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Thus this issue not arising from the order of the Tribunal, does not arise for our consideration. In any case we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has followed its decision rendered in the Assessee's case reported for A.Y. 2004-05 [2009 (6) TMI 677 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Mr.Pinto is unable to point out any distinguishable features in the present Appeal which would warrant out taking a different view from that having been taken in the order passed by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2004-05 . Moreover, nothing has been shown to us which would indicate that the Tribunal's order for the A.Y. 2004-05 has not been accepted by the Revenue. - Revenue appeal dismissed.
|