Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 395 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 395 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - [2016] 386 ITR 290 - Courts territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter - Held that:- The initial order dated 21.12.2006, Annexure A.1 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act which was rectified under Section 154 of the Act on 28.12.2006 was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad. The final assessment order dated 29.12.2006, Annexure A.2 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er an order passed by the Assessing Officer, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad, the complete paper book of appeal - ITA No. 1 of 2016 (O&M) - Dated:- 23-4-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. DARSHAN SINGH, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Rishab Kapoor, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3) read with section 80IA(9) of the Act? ii) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not allowing the amount of deduction allowed under section 80IB to be reduced from the business profits to compute deduction under section 8HHC on the resultant profits? Iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in law in not adjudicating about inclusion of export benefits to be part of profit from exports to AE and not ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12.2006, Annexure A.2 at a total income of Rs. 43,03,52,979/-. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act on the profits and gains derived from the industrial unit situated at Silvassa to the tune of Rs. 1,90,96,190/- and also claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act amounting to Rs. 85,40,817/- on the profits derived from exports made from all the divisions including industrial unit of Silvassa. The Assessing Officer, in view of the provisions contained in section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessing Officer noticed that the assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises involving export of finished goods amounting to Rs. 9,22,35,092/- and other international transactions. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of these international transactions. On the basis of TPO's order, total addition of Rs. 2,66,59,178/- was made by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duction allowed under section 80IB of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 1,02,47,642/- out of total addition of Rs. 2,45,98,456/- involving export of manufactured goods and confirmed the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustments towards commission payment of Rs. 20,60,722/-. Not satisfied with the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The department also filed cross appeal. Vide order dated 27.3.2015, Annexure A.4, the Tribunal partly allowed the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing), Hyderabad. The final assessment order dated 29.12.2006, Annexure A.2 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Even the appeal was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) at Hyderabad. Further appeal by the assessee and cross appeal by the revenue were filed before the Tribunal at Hyderabad. Since the initial process of assessment was started at Hyderabad and the final assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Hyderabad, this court lacks territori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court, while repelling the aforesaid contention had noticed as under: The decision of the High Courts are binding on the subordinate Courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction but it does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction. In other words, the decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent for another High Court or for Courts or Tribunals outside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

igh Court to take advantage of a suitable decision taken by it. Thus, such an assessee may avoid application of inconvenient law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. On the basis of the aforementioned reasoning, the Division Bench sustained the objection that the jurisdiction to entertain the application under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 256 of the Act vested in the High Court of Bombay and not of Delhi. We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned reasoning of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version