|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1739 Records
-
2017 (8) TMI 1502
CENVAT Credit - input services - services pertained to development work of underground mines and fan installation in the mines for the purpose of ventilation - Held that:- It appears that the services were carried out to obtain sufficient quantity of raw material, of course outside the factory premises but within the mining area. So, these services are connected with the manufacture of the final product and prima facie eligible for cenvat credit - case remanded back to adjudicating authority for fresh decision after examining the nexus between the services and the final product of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1501
Condonation of delay - Held that:- Delay in filing of the appeals has occasioned only on account of the sufficient cause and the action of the assessee cannot be imputed with negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides, as assessee was seriously contesting additions made in the orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the appeal proceedings u/s 153A of the Act such additions were already challenged before us, which additions were mere repetition of the additions made in the orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate act of the assessee, and hence the delay in filing of the appeals in is condoned.
Assessment u/s 153A - Whether any incriminating material was found as a result of search u/s 132(1) of the Act warranting any addition in the orders passed under section 153A? - Addition u/s 68 - statement recorded in search - whether statement of Shri IC Jindal is an incriminating material even if it is retracted on 15.09.2011? - denial of deduction u/s 10(38) - Held that:- We find that on 26.03.2010 a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) was conducted at the premises of the assessee. On the same date, search was also conducted at the other group of companies as well as at the residential premises of the managing director of the appellant company. The places covered under the search was New Delhi, Gwalior, Raipur, Indore and Banmore and from all the aforesaid premises a cash of ₹ 5,62,635/- was found and out of the aforesaid a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/-, was seized however aforesaid cash was found duly recorded in the books as such no addition was made in respect thereof. Apart from the aforesaid, no other material which can be held to be incriminating material was referred to which was found from any of the premises despite the search undertaken by the revenue which formed the basis for making additions in these years. In two years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08 additions made in the assessments orders u/s 143(3) were repeated in orders passed u/s 153A.
In the present case assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts, no other material was found which suggest that assessee is in a habitual concealment of income or books of accounts of the assessee are not fund to be reliable. No other incriminating material except the retracted statement is made the basis of the addition.
The completed assessments of the assessee for all these assessment years in appeal when made u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had opportunity to examine each and every aspect. The revenue is empowered under various provisions of the I. T. Act, to reopen / revise such assessments if there is any material or information found in their possession. Section 153A limits their power only to the material found during the search in order to assess the undisclosed income or property. Revenue could not show us any material referred to by the AO in the orders passed u/s 153A which led him to assess u/s 153A as those assessment were already completed and can be interfered only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search.
Regarding the authenticity of the retraction statement the arguments of the revenue fails when the same is available on the file of the AO and AO himself has issued certified copy of that retraction letter, same letter is also referred to in the order of CIT (A). Revenue before us could not submit any evidences that the retraction statement is not authentic. Further revenue has no answer why it took the cheques for taxes when it is so sure of the undisclosed income and further not deposited the same at all leave aside on time. All these cumulative factors go strongly in favour of the assessee about its timely retraction of the admission. Decided in favour of assessee.
Computation of LTCG - taxability of long term capital gains treated as speculation and short term capital gain - AO has treated long term capital gain declared by the assessee as short term - Held that:- We find that contract notes issued by the brokers for the purchase of the shares have duly been confirmed by them directly to AO in response to notices u/s 133(6) submitted by him in the remand report before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The brokers have confirmed the physical delivery was taken of the scripts purchased by the assessee and on the request of the assessee they were kept for dematerialization and after dematerialization the shares were credited to the demat account of the assessee. In view thereof it is held that AO is incorrect in holding that delivery of the shares has not been taken by the assessee. All the sales were effected through stock exchange, STT has been paid which is clearly depicted in the contract notes, and details provided and were confirmed by the brokers as well as depository.
CBDT in their circulars quoted above have expressed that date mentioned in the contract note should be taken as the date of purchase of the shares and date of transfer in the demat account is not relevant for the determination of the holding period for the computation of the capital gain. We, therefore, hold that date mentioned in the contract note of purchase be taken to determine the holding period of the shares in order to compute the LTCG.
Merely because shares purchased by assessee were transferred to his demat account on a later date, date of transfer to demat account could not be taken as date of purchase.
DMAT account and contract note showed details of share transaction, and Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income u/s 68 in Commissioner of Income-tax-13 v. Shyam R. Pawar [2014 (12) TMI 977 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
Where assessee having purchased shares in physical form, converted them in D-Mat form and thereupon sale of those shares was carried out through recognized stock exchange after paying securities transaction tax, said transactions were to be regarded as genuine in nature and, therefore, assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) was to be allowed as held in Income-tax Officer, Ward 2, Nizamabad v. Smt. Aarti Mittal[2013 (11) TMI 968 - ITAT HYDERABAD].
We are of the opinion that in the absence of any material contrary found by the AO during the enquiry made in the assessment and later in the remand proceedings, the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(38) cannot be denied. The purchases were made when physical delivery was taken which was confirmed by the brokers also and STT was not applicable during that period on the purchases which was introduced after 01.10.2004 and STT was duly paid on the sale of the shares made through stock exchange. Addition made on account of long term capital gain is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1500
Lapse of acquisition in respect of the suit lands - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - registered owners - non-payment of compensation - Held that:- It is quite evident therefore that the LAC has admitted that compensation in respect of the suit lands to the extent of 1 bigha in each petition was not paid. As to what is meant by “payment” has been explained in one of the earlier authorities of the Supreme Court in relation to Section 24(2) of the Act i.e. Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harak Chand Misrimal Solanki and Ors. [2014 (1) TMI 1643 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was clearly stated that “payment” connotes the aspect of tendering to the land owner and in the event of refusal by him or her, its deposit in the Court by the Collector - In the present case, therefore, there is a clear admission that the respondents did not pay the land owners the compensation they were entitled to - The petitioner acquired the property through registered sale deed on 28.06.1988. Upon these facts, the Court is unable to sustain the respondent’s objection that the property had vested in the Gaon Sabha since the award determined the compensation in its favour.
The Court is of the opinion that the petitioners’ rights as subsequent purchasers and secondly “persons interested”, prior to the acquisition has to be recognized - it is declared that the acquisition in respect of the suit lands i.e. Khasra Nos.19/18, 19/19 and 19/23, Village Pansali are deemed to have lapsed - petition allowed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1499
TP Adjustment consequent to determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) on the basis of the set of comparables selected by the TPO - Held that:- The assessee is engaged in providing software development services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs), thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
15% of tolerance range of RPT is proper and reasonable in the case of the assessee. Though this is not a standard parameter as we have discussed in the foregoing part of this order and it depends on the facts of the case and availability of the comparable companies to apply the tolerance range from 5% to 25%. Therefore 15% is otherwise the medium of the two extremes of 5% to 25% and hence in normal circumstances it has to be taken as a proper tolerance range.
Reducing telecommunication expenses from export turnover as well as total turnover while computing the deduction under Section 10A - Held that:- We find that the issue of expenditure incurred towards telecommunication charges in foreign currency is reduced from export turnover an equal amount should also be reduced from total turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act, is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.[2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - decided in favour of assessee
Setting off of the business losses pertaining to non-STPI against the profits of STPI units prior to allowing the deduction under Section 10A - Held that:- As relying on M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. case [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 10A of the Act prior to setting off of losses pertaining to non-STPI units against the profits of STPI units.
Disallowance under Section 14A - Held that:- As regards the claim of the assessee that the assessee has not used any borrowed fund for the purpose of investment of ₹ 103,43,87,000 we find that this aspect of the matter has not been properly examined by the authorities below therefore, in the absence of proper examination of the fact of availability of the non-interest bearing fund with the assessee, no concluding finding can be given at this stage.
The second contention that since the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration therefore the provisions of Section 14A cannot be applied. Though the language of Section 14A does not contemplate actual earning of income and expenditure incurred for earning of the income but it provides that no deduction can be allowed in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total income. On principle, we do agree with the contention of the CIT (DR) that income includes positive as well as negative income and therefore even in case there is loss it will be considered as income for the purpose of IT Act. As relying on case of Cheminvest Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A.
Non deduction of tds - provision created for royalty to be paid to ABB Technology Ltd. by applying the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- AR has submitted that the assessee itself has reversed the provision in the subsequent year and offered the amount of tax for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the matter on the point as to whether this amount has been taxed twice for the year under consideration as well as in the Assessment Year 2009-10. In case this amount has been taxed again for the Assessment Year 2009-10, then necessary remedial action to be taken by the Assessing Officer to avoid double taxation of the same amount.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1498
Maintainability including enforceability of the foreign award - Held that:- In the instant case, in so far as the seller is concerned, it is quite clear that certificate at the port of loading is final. The reference to GAFTA Rules for the purpose of interpretation of the relevant contractual terms to find out who is responsible for the production of the quality certificate at the destination port by the arbitral tribunal, is entirely within the domain of the Tribunal and is within the realm of interpretation of the contract. Even a Court in dealing with a domestic award would not touch the award on this ground. In any event, such grounds of challenge are not coming within the purview of Section 48 of the Act.
The Court unhesitatingly accepts the submission of Mr. Bose that the English cases at this stage are academic as the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the award-holder seller is an unpaid vendor and the seller has discharged its obligation under the contract.
Application dismissed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1497
The Supreme Court of India in 2017 (8) TMI 1497 - SC Order, with Justices Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman and Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, condoned delay and granted leave for the petitioner. The case is tagged along with Civil Appeal No.6415 of 2016.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1496
Cable Operator Service - Telecasting/Broadcasting rights are leased out by the organizing body - Held that:- Section 8 of the Cable Act imposes an obligation on the Cable Operators to carry/transmit such Doordarshan channels or the channels operated by or on behalf of Parliament, as may be, notified in the Official Gazette. The legislature has not specified any particular channel which must be mandatorily carried by Cable Operators. The task has been left to the Central Government. It will, therefore, be not wrong to understand the obligation cast on Cable Operators to transmit the DD1 (National) channel and the transmission of Live feed of major sports events of national importance on the said channel by the Doordarshan as a matter of mere coincidence instead of a legislative mandate.
Under Section 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 the live feed received by Prasar Bharati from content rights owners or holders is only for the purpose of re-transmission of the said signals on its own terrestrial and DTH networks and not to Cable Operators so as to enable the Cable TV operators to reach such consumers who have already subscribed to a cable network.
Appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1495
Insider under the PIT Regulations - proceedings under PIT regulations abatement upon the death of a person who is alleged to have committed insider trading - WTM of SEBI justification in holding that each appellant was an ‘insider’ under the PIT Regulations and that the appellants pledged/ sold shares of Satyam when in possession of UPSI, and therefore the appellants are guilty of violating SEBI Act and the PIT Regulations? - whether the WTM of SEBI is justified in uniformly restraining the appellants from accessing the securities market for 7 years and whether, the quantum of unlawful gain directed to be disgorged by each appellant jointly and severally with Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju and Mr. Rama Raju with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 07.01.2009 till payment, is in accordance with law?
Held that:- One month prior to the UPSI came into existence, the Board of RPIL had authorized investments in the shares of Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd. (“IPCL) and therefore, it cannot be said that the shares of IPCL were purchased when in possession of UPSI. In the present case, Chintalapati group sold the shares of Satyam during the period when UPSI was existing. Therefore, the decision of SEBI in case of RPIL has no relevance to the facts of present case. In the result, decision of the WTM that Chintalapati group were insiders under the PIT Regulations and that they had sold the shares of Satyam when in possession of UPSI in violation of PIT Regulations cannot be faulted.
The Scheme of PIT Regulations of 1992 makes it evident that these dual requirements need to be satisfied before a person can be called an “insider” under the PIT Regulations of 1992. The conjunctive “And” is, therefore, significant and cannot be ignored. As far as the second category of “insider” is concerned (Regulation 2(e)(ii)), it clearly refers to a person who “has received or has had access to such unpublished price sensitive information”. Thus, to fall under the second category of insiders, one must either have actually received the UPSI or actually had access to such UPSI in any manner without being a connected person. In these appeals, we are not concerned with this category of persons as SEBI has not invoked the second category. There is also no finding to that effect in the Impugned Order.
First, when an alleged offender dies after SEBI has made a determination of violation of the PIT Regulations. In this category, SEBI can subject to the provisions of SEBI Act and the PIT Regulations can recover the unlawful gain from the legal heirs, if it is found that the unlawful gains accrued to the estate.
Second, an alleged offender dies before proceedings under the PIT Regulations are initiated or during proceedings under PIT Regulations. This is more difficult case, because the determination under PIT Regulations cannot be done in the absence of a person. Without given a hearing to a person, SEBI cannot make a determination that the person had reasonable access to UPSI and was in possession of UPSI when he sold the shares. The finding of insider trading can only be done in the presence of the person concerned since these proceedings are personal to the alleged offender. The legal heir may not be in a position to represent the alleged offender. However, we do not intend to say more and reserve this matter for further consideration in an appropriate matter. In light of the abovesaid, I allow this appeal and hereby set aside the WTM Order.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1494
The judgment by the Securities and Exchange Board of India in Mumbai, 2017 (8) TMI 1494, directed the Registry to correct an error in the order dated 11th August, 2017 by numbering the paragraphs continuously. The case was presided over by J.P. Devadhar and Dr. C.K.G. Nair, JJ. Appellant represented by Ravichandra Hegde, Advocate i/b J. Sagar Associates, and Respondents represented by Pulkit Sukhramani, Advocate i/b The Law Point.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1493
Claim for deduction u/s. 80P denied - break-up details of interest income not furnished - Held that:- From the computation of total income furnished by the assessee as noticed that an amount of ₹ 20,50,220/- has been assessed by the Assessing Officer under the head “Income from other sources” - the same actually represents interest received from the bank deposits. As noticed that the assessee had received interest from the bank deposits to the tune of ₹ 22.61 lakhs and set off of brought forward loss of ₹ 2.11 lakhs and accordingly, declared net interest income of ₹ 20.50 lakhs - the breakup of details of interest receipts has not been furnished by the assessee. However, we agree in principle with contention of the assessee that interest received from the cooperative bank is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) relying on case of Totagars Cooperative Sale Society [2017 (1) TMI 1100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. However the break-up details of interest income require verification.
Set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purposes of verifying the breakup details interest income received by the assessee and also direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest received from the cooperative banks/societies. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1492
Disallowance on account of sugarcane development expenses - assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of white crystal sugar - allowable busniss expenses u/s 37 - Held that:- AO in a very summarily manner has disallowed the expenses on the ground that it is relatable to agricultural income.
Expenses have to be incurred by the assessee as per the direction or mandate of the State Government; and have been debited as cane development expenses in the profit and loss account which is part of the assessee’s main activity of manufacturing of sugar crystals. The cane development expenses debited to the profit & loss account and the agricultural income are completely unrelated and therefore, to say that it is directly related to assessee’s agricultural income from its own land is sans any material. The similar claim of expenses have always been allowed by the Assessing Officer in the scrutiny assessments right from the assessment year 2001-02 to 2006-07. CIT (Appeals) has referred to CBDT’s circular No. 578 dated 15.2.1990, wherein CBDT has clarified and upheld that the expenditure incurred by the sugar factory on cane development programmes is eligible for deduction u/s 37(1). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1491
Condonation of delay - delay of 1371 days - non-removal of office objections - Held that:- The cause as set out and the explanation as forwarded today, on affidavit and belatedly, reflects total negligence and callousness of the Revenue officials. Their attitude shows that they are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of crores of rupees. They expect the Court to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. It is this approach of the Revenue officials which is not only strongly deprecated in the earlier order but this Court has refused to uphold it after it was noticed that this is the position in almost every matter.
This is no explanation for the delay of 1371 days and if for all these years the Revenue officials have not noticed the lodging, filing or pendency of an appeal, a conditional order of the Registry, then, it must set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to sub-serve larger public interest.
If they are found to be handing-love with the assessee and adopt such tactics deliberately, then, we do not think that the Court is responsible for the same. Registrar (O.S.) has been drawing up a list and notifying the appeals regularly and intimating the parties and their Advocates through the High Court website that they must attend to these cases or else all consequences including dismissal without adjudication on merit, will follow. If this is a known fact to all practising Advocates, including the Revenue's Advocates, then, we do not think that any special treatment can be claimed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1490
TPA - comparable selection - Held that:- Assessee is into providing Investment advisory services to its holding company, viz. THPL in the year 2004. Despite the multiple sectors of operations, no segmental data is available in the 'Annual report', and the income from the advisory operating constitute only 42.10% of its total operating income. We are further of the considered view that as observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid comparable unlike the assessee is engaged in the business of managing and advising funds in the Growth Capital as well as Real Estate Space. That a perusal, of 'Schedule E' to the balance sheet of the aforesaid comparable therein reveals that the latter had made investments in one of the funds managed, by it, i.e 'India Reality excellence fund'. Thus in the totality of the aforesaid facts we are of the considered view that functions performed by the aforementioned comparable, viz. Motilal Oswal Equity Pvt. Limited, which is into managing and investment into funds, cannot be compared to the assessee whose functions are strictly limited to as that of an Investment advisor. Thus we are of the considered view that the aforementioned comparable, viz. Motilal Oswal Equity Pvt. Ltd. is functionally incomparable with the assessee company and had wrongly been included in the list of the final comparables. We thus direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid comparable from the final list of the comparables.
That in light of our aforesaid observations we herein direct the AO/TPO to recompute the ALP of the assessee company. The AO/TPO are directed that if the ALP of the assessee is found within the safe harbour of (+)/(-) 5% parameters, then no addition would be called for in the hands of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Addition u/s 40(a)(i) - setting aside of disallowance suggested by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) in the draft assessment order and exclusion of the said disallowance by the AO in the assessment framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) - Held that:- The assessee company is not a beneficiary of this expenditure because the seconded employees have been paid salary by THPL who are working in India for the assessee company and the assessee is merely reimbursing the same. By rendering this service to the THPL, the assessee is earning business income and salary paid is certainly a business expenditure on which TDS has already been deducted as the liability to withhold the tax on salary falls within the purview of section 192 only, which has been done in this case. There cannot be a double deduction of TDS once at the time of payment of the salary and again on the reimbursement made by the assessee to the THPL. Thus, there was no requirement for deducting the tax at the time of reimbursement, when already tax has been deducted at the time of payment of salary - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) to be deleted.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1489
Validity of order u/s 201(1) - period of limitation - Held that:- The questions urged in this appeal by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [2018 (4) TMI 450 - ITAT DELHI] for AY 2004-05 stand answered against it by the order passed by this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-8 v. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. - [2017 (11) TMI 1313 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
-
2017 (8) TMI 1488
Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor - right of any Financial Institution to file application under Section 7 of the I&B Code - Held that:- Rules of natural justice was followed before admitting the applications.
Apart from the Inter-se Agreement between different banks is not binding in nature, the 'Corporate Debtors' not being signatories cannot derive advantage of such Inter-se Agreement. This apart, the 'financial creditors' having right to file application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, individually or jointly on behalf of other 'financial creditors' as quoted below, the Inter-se Agreement between the 'financial creditors' cannot override the said provision, nor can take away the right of any Financial Institution to file application under Section 7 of the I&B Code.
For the reasons aforesaid, while we reject the submission made on behalf of the appellants, in absence of any merit, dismiss both the appeals.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1487
Maintainability of appeal - order in original was set aside - Cenvat Credit - Held that:- Since the order-in-original passed by the CESTAT, EZB, dated 23-12-2015 has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 30-8-2016 in OTAPL No. 5 of 2016, the present appeal has become infructuous and we find no basis for entertaining the same - the OTAPL is dismissed as infructuous.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1486
Disallowance of advertisement expenditure - Held that:- CIT(A) deleted the additions on account of disallowance of advertising and publicity expenses by following various orders of the Tribunal for several preceding assessment years. The matter went up-to Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the departmental appeals have been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide its Judgment in CIT VERSUS MAHASHIAN DI HATTI LTD. [2015 (12) TMI 1182 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by the Judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal. - decided against revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1485
TDS u/s 194C on the value of the by-products - nature of liability - assumption of Payment in kind - work carried out by the millers who are under contract with the procurement agency/assessee - Held that:- Exchange of goods for goods and does not involve any cash outflow. Although services were taken, it is difficult to say that the residuals and the losses left by the assessee in favour of AIL are purely consideration for the job that is done. The market fluctuations in the price structure of the raw material and the end product cannot be just ignored in the whole transaction nor the process loss.
In the case in hand, whatever amount the assessee has paid as ‘milling charges’ for the paddy, the assessee has deduced the TDS thereupon. However, the assessee was not obliged to make any payment on the value of the by-product retained by the miller, therefore, in the light of the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Aahar Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 488 - ITAT, DELHI] provisions of section 194C of the Act as well as 201(1) / 201 (1A) of the Income- tax Act would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore, has rightly deleted the addition imposed by the AO on account of non / short deduct ion of tax us 201(1) / 201(1A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1484
TPA - AMP expenses - whether is an international transaction as per the provisions of section 92B of the Act or not? - Held that:- As the issue is covered in favour of assessee, respectfully following Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 [2016 (4) TMI 1146 - ITAT MUMBAI] we also hold that the AMP expenses and transaction arising out of the same is not international transaction and cannot be subject matter of TP adjustment u/s 92C of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1483
TPA - comparable selection - Held that:- Proposition laid down by the Tribunal in M/s. Vishay Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016 (5) TMI 1321 - ITAT PUNE) we hold that where the financial data of M/s. Microgenetic Systems Ltd. was available during TP proceedings, then the same may be considered in case the said concern fulfills all the filters applied by the TPO.
............
|
9911796707
