|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1254 Records
-
2014 (8) TMI 1055
Demand of Customs duty - imported goods were provisionally assessed to duty - Petitioner contended that final assessment was not carried out and without carrying out the final assessment the demand show cause notice could not have been issued according to it - Held that:- according to the department there was final assessment. So the submission of the petitioner is not accepted, that assuming that there is only provisional assessment, no other step apart from final assessment can be taken. Provisionally assessed goods are required to be finally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 but that provision assumes that there is no complaint regarding the goods or the importer. Here, respondent points out that there is an allegation of misdeclaration regarding the value of the goods. In such a case the department is empowered to issue a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 111 thereof.
But it does appear that although from all practical purposes the final assessment had been made of the goods but such final assessment was taken to be “deemed”. There was no final order of assessment. Therefore, the department is enjoined to pass formal order of assessment. Section 28 of the Act would apply to the writ petitioner accordingly. No reason found to set aside and quash the show cause notice. Application disposed of
-
2014 (8) TMI 1054
Bogus sale of machinery - Held that:- . It has not been disputed by the ld. AR of the assessee that machinery in question was held as an asset by the company. The assessee produced the details of M/s. Shekhawati Transport Company wherein the GRs bear the stamp of Municipal Council, Kishangarh. The ld. CIT(A) has given an appropriate findings of fact that the machinery was sold by the assessee. - Decided against revenue
Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) allowed part relief - Held that:- The relief of ₹ 59,000/-in respect of addition u/s 68 of the Act has been given verifying the returns filed by the creditors and by relying on the judgemnet of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. ACIT (2005 (8) TMI 67 - RAJASTHAN High Court ) . Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is upheld.- Decided against revenue
Addition on unexplained share capital - Held that:- The assessee discharged its primary onus in respect of addition by filing the copies of share application forms, GIR numbers and wards of the shares subscribersthe assessee discharged its primary onus in respect of addition of ₹ 3.30 lacs by filing the copies of share application forms, GIR numbers and wards of the shares subscribers. - Decided against revenue
Addition on unrecorded investment / expenses noticed in seized document - Held that:- There is finding of fact given by the ld. CIT(A) that the AO has not mentioned as to how the figure of ₹ 1,42,667/- was arrived at. Since no reasons are mentioned in the assessment order therefore, the ld. DR could not controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A).- Decided against revenue
-
2014 (8) TMI 1053
Seeking release of goods - Import of sizeable quantity of sugar confectionery - products and the packages containing them are violative of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 - Respondent argued that the label of the goods of the petitioner was defective. It mentioned that the product contained “seaweed” but failed to mention any particular type of seaweed that it product contained. Seaweed, of only particular types were safe for human consumption, others were not, it was said.
Held that:- ongoing through the annexures to the affidavit in opposition, it appears that the products sought to be imported are safe for human consumption, in all other respects. There is only an element of doubt with regard to the presence of seaweed and the absence of a declaration in the label that the permitted type of seaweed “Agar Agar” is included in the product. I also take note of petitioner's submission that earlier consignments of identical goods were released without objection. In that view of the matter, one cannot stop importation of the said goods. But the imported goods can only be released in the market upon a label being permanently affixed by the importer to the effect that the product contains “Agar Agar”, a permitted seaweed and no other type of seaweed. This labelling has to be done on all the imported packages to the satisfaction of the Food Safety Department. The Food Safety Department will issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ within 48 hours thereafter. The Customs Authorities will thereupon take steps for expeditious release of the goods. - Decided in favour of petitioner
-
2014 (8) TMI 1052
Deduction u/s 54/54F disallowed - whether house/units in the first and second floors were separate and independent residential units having separate entrances and cannot be considered as one unit to enable the assessee to claim the deduction - HC [2013 (3) TMI 101 - DELHI HIGH COURT] allowed the claim - Held that:- There is nothing in Sections 54/54F which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in the section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement.
A person may construct a house according to his plans and requirements.Unable to see how or why the physical structuring of the new residential house,whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. The residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F - HC took the correct view. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1051
Disallowance of Mark to Market loss are notional losses - Held that:- Facts emerging out of the assessment record show that assessee is in the business of import and export of diamonds substantial portion of its transaction are denominated in US dollars and accordingly current assets and liabilities are also denominated in US dollars to hedge itself against risk out of fluctuation in foreign exchange. The assessee was entering into forward contract to hedge itself. Forward contract in foreign exchange are booked in the assessee’s regular course of business, which are always denominated in foreign currency. Whenever there is a gain the assessee is recognizing the same in its P & L Account. Hedging is a commercial necessity being followed by all engaged in import & export line because of the highly volatile currency fluctuation.
As relying on the decision of DCIT vs. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait (2010 (8) TMI 578 - ITAT, MUMBAI) to hold that the liabilities for foreign exchange was incurred during the normal course of assessee’s business and in fact the gain earned on such revaluation having been accepted and brought to tax in the respective years, there is no reason to arrive at a different conclusion in this year merely because there is a loss. Thus directing the AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1049
Levy of penalty under Section 53(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Furnishing of a false declaration under section 8(4) of the CST Act - Held that:- Section 10 of the CST Act relates to penalties and, under sub-section (a) thereof, if a person furnishes a declaration under section 8(4) which he knows, or has reason to believe, to be false, he shall be punishable. All the provisions relating to offences, interest and penalties, including provisions relating to penalties in lieu of prosecution for an offence or in addition to the penalties or punishment for an offence, but excluding the provisions relating to matters provided for in sections 10 and 10A, in the general tax law of each State shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to the assessment, reassessment, collection and the enforcement of payment of any tax required to be collected under the CST Act in such State or in relation to any process connected with such assessment, reassessment, collection or enforcement of payment, as if the tax under the CST Act was a tax under such sales tax law (VAT Act). While the provisions of the A. P. VAT Act would be applicable for all provisions relating to offences, interest and penalty under the CST Act, section 9(2A) of the CST Act specifically excludes application of the A. P. VAT Act to section 10 of the CST Act. Therefore, as section 10(a) specifically provides for imposition of penalty as stipulated thereunder, the impugned order, levying penalty under section 53(3) of the A. P. VAT Act is without jurisdiction and is, accordingly, set aside. - Petition disposed of
-
2014 (8) TMI 1048
Liability of Entertainment tax in view of amendment in the Rajasthan Entertainments and Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 by the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008 - Section 3(4A), 4AAA ibid - Petitioner providing direct-to-home (DTH) broadcasting services all over India including the State of Rajasthan contended that the respondent-State cannot levy entertainment tax as DTH broadcasting services specifically covered under List I, Schedule VII (entry 92C) by virtue of discipline of article 246(1) of the Constitution of India and it cannot be again taxed under any taxing entry under List II of Schedule VII (entry 62) just by artificially enlarging the scope of the entry under List II. The definition of "entertainment" remains un-amended, however the charging section states that the entertainment tax is on DTH broadcasting service - Held that:- the amendment in the Rajasthan Entertainments and Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 by the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008 was introduced from February 25, 2008 under the aforesaid Acts/Rules and by this amendment direct-to-home (DTH) service was brought in the ambit of entertainment tax and to pay entertainment tax. Therefore, after considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Versus Purvi Communication P. Ltd. and others [2005 (3) TMI 438 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] upheld legislative competence of the State Legislature to levy entertainment tax on all payments for admission to an entertainment through direct-to-home (DTH) as contemplated under the relevant section 7 of the Delhi Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1996, the petitioner is liable to pay entertainment tax. - Decided against the petitioner
-
2014 (8) TMI 1047
Clandestine clearances of fabrics processed and cleared - actual manufacturer - duty demand - Held that:- Merely because the factory was registered in the name of the appellants and the same was given on license by the appellants to the said Chandan Processors/Ram Processors for carrying out the manufacturing activity, that in law would not make the appellants liable for payment of duty on the goods manufactured by the said Chandan Processors/Ram Processors. The appellant had licensed their factory to Chandan Processors, who manufactured the goods on their own account using their own labour and materials.
The appellants had given their factory on license to Chandan Processors/Ram Processors, who were the actual manufacturers and who have during the investigations admitted to the manufacture and clearance of the goods and also undertaken to pay the duty. Thus, the duty is recoverable from the said Chandan Processors/Ram Processors and not from the appellants. The impugned Order passed against the appellants is therefore liable to be set aside.
Further, in any event, penalty is not sustainable in view of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in Pioneer Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. U.O.I. [1991 (9) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI ] [upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2003 (11) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ], as the demand is for additional duty of excise under Goods of Special Importance Act to which the penal provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 were not applicable for the period prior to 13-5-1994. The major part of the period in the present case is prior to 13-5-1994. The search operations took place on 30-5-1994 and there is no separate quantification of the duty for the period 13-5-1994 to 30-5-1994. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1046
Depreciation on the asset on application of income under Section 11 - double deduction - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- Admittedly, the CIT(A) has followed order of the ‘tribunal’ in the case of the ITO, Company Ward – I Vs. M/s. CMS Educational & Charitable Trust [2013 (4) TMI 771 - ITAT CHENNAI ] holding that a claim of depreciation alike the case involved herein is allowable in case of a charitable trust who has included assets in application/exemption u/s.11A of the Act. The co-ordinate bench has followed the case law of Vegetable Products ( 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) to conclude that in case of divergent judicial precedents, the one favouring the assessee has to be adopted. On being granted opportunity, the Revenue neither points out any distinction on facts nor refers to any judgment of the hon’ble jurisdictional high court. In these circumstances, we affirm CIT(A) findings under challenge. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1045
One Order-in-Original decided the four show cause notices by a single order - Held that:- In the present proceedings only one OIO has been issued by the adjudicating authority against four show cause notices and the OIO has mentioned four numbers i.e. OIO No. 41 to 44. In view of the above observations in Sun Pharmaceuticals vs. CCE, Vapi [2013 (6) TMI-632-CESTAT-AHM], it is clear that more than one show cause notices decided under a single OIO filing of one appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.01.2013, passed by the first appellate authority is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the issue involved in these proceedings on merits.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1044
Order of acquittal - conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that:- The prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant PW- 2, upon whose evidence much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
We, accordingly answer the point in favour of the appellant that exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the High Court to reverse the judgment and order of acquittal is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we answer the point in favour of the appellant.
For the foregoing reasons, we have to restore the judgment and order of acquittal of the trial court by setting aside the impugned judgment of HC
-
2014 (8) TMI 1043
Determination of fair market value of the property - property purchased by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 269 UD(1) - Appropriate Authority compared the proposed sale of said property with a sale instance of 1989 with regard to premises on a 1st floor property situated within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation ( compared 1st floor property) - Held that:- In the present case the said property and the compared 1st floor property are not identical/similar in all respect i.e. compared 1st floor property is situated within the the Pune Municipal Corporation while the said property is outside the Pune Municipal Corporation . This by itself would be a factor which would make difference in the value of the two properties. As a property situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation would be beneficiary of various services made available by the Municipal Corporation which is not available to said property admittedly situated outside the limits of Municipal Corporation. The said property is an open land while the compared 1st floor property is a constructed property. This is a major difference and allowance should be made not only by reducing the cost of construction of the compared property but also other differences. All these would have to be factored in while determining the fair market value of the said property. This admittedly has not been done in this particular case. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.
It has been also pointed out that the impugned order failed to consider the market value of 3000 sq.ft. built up area to be given by the petitioner to the transferor society i.e. respondent No.4. This was being paid as part of the consideration for the purchase of the said property. However, the Appropriate Authority has only considered the cost of construction to arrive at the apparent consideration of the said property and not its market value. This alone would lead to proper determination of value of the said property.
Petitioner handed over a letter dated 10 May 2012 from the Commissioner of Income Tax to the petitioner acknowledging the receipt of ₹ 39,48,339/- by the Appropriate Authority from the petitioner. The letter is dated 10 May 2012 is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Counsel for the parties inform us that the amount of ₹ 39,48,339/- is the amount paid by the respondent revenue to the transferor respondent No.4 at the time of passing the impugned order dated 24 February 1995.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1042
Unaccounted income - cash withdrawal from the bank - Held that:- AO’s action of making addition on accounts of all deposits made in the bank accounts of the appellant is without any justification and bordering to the point of high pitch assessment.
During the course of assessment proceedings as well as before the undersigned the appellant has produced cash book showing daily cash balances. From this statement it is observed that appellant was having maximum cash balance of ₹ 7,95,165/on 26/08/2008. Considering that whatever income the appellant earned is being ploughed back into his business and he could have at the most earned income to the extent of the maximum cash balance as per his cash book, accordingly maximum addition is restricted to the peak of cash balance during the year.
Under the circumstances, addition of ₹ 7,95,160/on account of unaccounted income is being confirmed and the assessee gets relief ₹ 31,75,604/.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1041
Winding-up of the company - workmen's dues and debts due to the secured creditors shall be paid pari passu in priority to other debts - Payment of taxes subject to the provisions in section 529A and section 529A of the Companies Act- Held that:- Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act creates a charge, for the sales tax dues, on the properties of the dealer, whereas section 26A of the said Act makes the transactions in respect of the properties of the dealer during the pendency of the proceedings for determination of the dues and after its culmination, void, as against the claim in respect of the dues payable under the said Act. While section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act enables the State to ignore the transactions in respect of the properties of the dealer after the dues under the said Act became due, section 26A of the said Act enables the State to ignore the transactions in respect of the properties of the dealer from the date of commencement of the proceedings for determination of the dues under the said Act. As such, like section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, section 26A of the said Act also cannot prevail, when it comes into collision with the mandates of section 529A of the Companies Act.
The petitioner, in the circumstances, is entitled to succeed. Exhibit P10 communication of the third respondent is quashed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to issue the certificates sought for by the petitioner as per exhibit P7 request, within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment
-
2014 (8) TMI 1040
Deduction u/s.80IB(10) - as per AO the built up area of 2 row houses 1 & 7 are more than 1500 sq.ft. each - Held that:- CIT(A) has held that the size of the project comprise of 63 units only which included 56 flats and 7 row houses which could quality for the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) and not 65 units as held by the Assessing Officer (para 3.6 of the order). Similarly, he has held that the area of the 2 units, i.e. 1 & 7 are less than 1500 sq.ft. after excluding terrace, balcony and projections etc., and therefore the 2 units fulfil conditions prescribed u/s.80IB(10)(14)(a) of the I.T. Act. The above observations of the Ld.CIT(A) are not challenged by the Revenue and therefore it has attained finality and therefore we are not concerned with the above objections of the Assessing Officer.
The approval for the project was given by the Development Authority on March 16, 2005. Clearly the approval related to the period prior to 2005, i.e., before the amendment, which insisted on issuance of the completion certificate by the end of the four-year period, was brought into force. The application of such stringent conditions, which are left to an independent body such as the local authority who is to issue the completion certificate, would have led to not only hardship but absurdity. As a consequence, the Tribunal was not, therefore, in error of law while holding in favour of the assessee.
Since the date of the commencement of the project in the instant case is admittedly 16-07-2002 as held by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), therefore, it has to be held that amendment w.e.f. 01- 04-2005 requiring certificate of completion of project within 4 years of approval is not applicable to the projects approved prior to that date and therefore the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the I.T .Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1039
Detention of Import of assorted chocolates - FSSAI has found these chocolates to be non-compliant with the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 - Held that: -This court by an order dated 04.07.2014 directed FSSAI to forthwith test the petitioner's consignment in accordance with the FICS System. Apparently, the only objection with respect to the eight types of chocolates is with regard to the vegetable oil in the fillings and the same, as discussed earlier, is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is directed that the said goods be cleared subject to the petitioner complying with the other requirements. It is noted that goods in question have been lying in a warehouse since 03.01.2014. The goods being perishable are required to be cleared with utmost expedience. Respondent no.2 is also directed to ensure that clearance of goods is not impeded on account of any further clearances from FSSAI in respect of the eight types of chocolates that FSSAI had found to be non-compliant only in respect of Regulation 2.7.4 of the Food and Additives Regulations.
With respect to the eight types of chocolates where the labelling was found to be defective, the petitioner shall cure the same within the customs warehouse by affixing a non-detachable label giving all particulars as are necessary under the Labelling Regulations. The respondent no.2 shall also ensure that sufficient access to the goods is provided to the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to affix the necessary labels on those goods which have been found to be non-compliant of the Labelling Regulations. FSSAI shall ensure that the goods in question are cleared once the necessary labels have been affixed as directed. - Decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1038
Import of "YO-MIX 305 LYO 50 DCU" which is a blend of strains of lactic acid bacteria, that is used for direct vat inoculation into milk for preparing yogurt and fermented milk products. - FSSI refused to give on the ground that 'List of Ingredients' was not mentioned on the label. - appelalnt claimed that the products are for industrial use and not for retail sale - Held that:- it is apparent that even though the Regulation 2.2.2:2 of the Labelling Regulations is not applicable, the labelling of the goods in question provides sufficient information. In addition, the petitioner has also furnished the detailed product description of the goods and has also specifically provided the composition, properties, physical/chemical specifications as well as microbiological specifications.
This information is sufficient for the FSSAI to test whether the goods in question conform to its description. Accordingly, the impugned communication is set aside and the FSSAI is directed to examine the goods in question and issue a No-objection certificate within a period of 10 days from today, if the goods are found to be in conformity with their description as available on the package, as well as the product description sheet provided by the petitioner.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1037
Disallowance of expenses incurred as per an MOU towards development of property - Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) on the sale of Fursungi land at Pune - whether the claim of deduction for improvement of the land at Fursungi of ₹ 2,47,65,600/- which was restricted by the Ld. CIT(A) to ₹ 1,62,33,447/- for computation of Short Term Capital Gain is justified and directing the Assessing Officer to reduce ₹ 85,32,153/- from gross consideration as it was contractual liability on the assessee to do development of land as per MOU. - Held that:- Assessing Officer has not discussed the issue in detail but adopted shortcut by disallowing the entire claim of expenditure by writing 5-6 lines. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has in detail dealt with the issue and also narrated the relevant facts. In this case nowhere it is disputed that the assessee has sold the lands to the DSKDL but the solitary controversy is in respect of contractual liability on the assessee for carrying out development works on the said land as those lands were agricultural land, whereby the said land would be compatible for the project of the DSKDL which was initially SEZ project. It is stated that subsequently the DSKDL decided not to go with the SEZ project but decided to go with the Special Township Project and hence, the assessee was requested to withhold the further development. The assessee has produced the details of the expenditure on the said land before the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of ₹ 1,62,33,447/- which has not been controverted before us only argument of the Revenue is that the said expenditure is incurred by the assessee not during the assessment year.
It is true that the said MOU was not registered but at the same time it is also not disputed that the said MOU executed on the non-judicial stamp paper of ₹ 100/- “copy placed at Page Nos. 46 to 52 of the Compilation”. We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given the categorical finding that there was contractual obligation on the assessee to do the development and hence, to the extent of ₹ 1,62,33,447/- which were spent by the assessee up to 24- 01-2011, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction to the assessee. In respect of the balance amount of ₹ 85,32,153/-, the same was directed to be reduced from the sale consideration for the reason that the higher consideration offered by the buyer of the land i.e. DSKDL was subject to the terms of development of the infrastructure like roads, leveling and other improvements etc. After giving our anxious consideration to the entirety of the facts, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (8) TMI 1036
Registration u/s 12AA denied - Held that:- The trust is not created for the benefit of particular community or caste. The object of the assessee trust is based on activity of both charitable and religious. In such a situation, the benefits are not meant for exclusively for a particular religious community. The trust will not be disqualified to claim the exemption u/s.12AA of the Act.
The second objection of CIT is that no activity has been carried out by the assessee at a particular point of time. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative drew our attention to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Kutchi Dasa Oswal Moto Pariwar Ambama Trust (2012 (12) TMI 876 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) wherein the activities of trust have not commenced, the Commissioner was persuaded to reject its application for registration. Matter was travelled before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court wherein it was held that the Tribunal was right in granting relief to the assessee in similar set of facts.
As stated above, this view is fortified by the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dawoodi Bohra Jamat (2014 (3) TMI 652 - SUPREME COURT ). In view of above, the assessee is entitled for registration u/s.12AA of the Act for both accounts as discussed above. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1035
Transfer pricing adjustment - selection of comparable - Held that:- UTV Software Communication should be included in the list of comparables. However, we find that in the order of TPO, as per submission of the assessee UTV Software Communication was having PLI of (-) 2.64%.
However, in the submissions made before us such margin has been taken as (-) 3.81%. Thus, there is a variation in computing the PLI of UTV Software Communication. Though this would also not make much difference as the difference between the PLI of the assessee and arithmetic mean of final comparable even after this difference & other minor adjustment with regard to depreciation etc. which is dealt elsewhere in this order will be within the safe harbour of +/- 5%, however, for the purpose of verification of the PLI of UTV Software Communication we restore this issue to the file of TPO and we direct that if after including UTV Software Communication in the list of comparables and after adjustment on account of depreciation, which is dealt elsewhere in the order, difference between the PLI of the assessee and arithmetic mean of the comparable parties is within the safe harbour of +/-5%, then no addition on account of TP adjustment should be made.
Adjustment on account of depreciation - Applicability of rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) - Held that:- We direct the TPO to adopt the adjusted profit margin of the comparables as well as assessee after brining at par the treatment of the claim of depreciation. This exercise has been done by TPO in the remand proceedings and those figures should be adopted for the purpose of computing arithmetic mean of the margin of the comparables and the profit margin of the assessee
Computation of PLI - Held that:- A uniform approach has been adopted by the TPO in respect of computation of PLI in the case of assessee as well as in the case of comparables. If the uniform approach is adopted, unless any contrary material has been brought on record, we see no infirmity in such basis of the calculation.
............
|
9911796707
