Sri Lakhan Singh Vs. ACIT, Bangalore
even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities.
M/s. L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. ACIT, Noida
Special Bench-the transfer pricing adjustment in relation to advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee for creating or improving the marketing intangible for and on behalf of the foreign AE is permissible - earning a mark-up from the Associated Enterprise in respect of AMP expenses incurred for and on behalf of the AE is also allowable.
Deepkiran Foods P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ahmedabad
Assessee is a 100% EOU engaged in the business of manufacturing of frozen and processed food products like paratha, samosa, dhokla, idli, dahi vada, fried bhindi pani puri, mint chutney etc.It filed its return of income electronically on 24.9.2008 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s.10B.
Siemens Limited Vs. CIT, Mumbai
CIT (A) was not correct in holding that the payment made by assessee to Pehla Testing Lab was in any manner in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the ambit of section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 and accordingly there was no requirement in law to deduct tax at service on such payment.
Sri Prasad Nimmagadda Vs. DCIT, Hyderabad
assessee derived long term capital gain of Rs. 85,10,009/- on account of sale of residential flat and at the same time the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act of an amount of Rs. 84.00 lakh towards purchase of a land for constructing a residential house. Due to some reason or the other, the construction of the house could not be made within the period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the original asset, as per the terms of section 54 of the Act. As a result of which, the exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act was denied to the assesse.
Right Florists Pvt Ltd. Vs. ITO, Kolkata
The assessee is a florist and he uses advertising on search engines, i.e. by Google and Yahoo, to generate business. The way it works, in broad terms, is like this. Whenever anyone does a web search on the respective search engines, in looking for a particular website, and uses certain keywords, the advertisement of the assessee is shown alongwith the search results. The assessee had made payments aggregating to Rs. 30,44,166 in respect of online advertising to US based entities, namely Google Ireland Limited (Google Ireland, in short) and Overture Services Inc USA (Yahoo USA, in short) . However, no taxes were withheld from these payments.
V.N. Devadoss Vs. ACIT, Chennai
(i) Whether section 80AC is directory or mandatory, and - (ii) Whether the returns filed in response to notices issued under section 153A can be taken as returns filed within the time limit stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act.
Shri Vikas Oberoi Vs. DCIT, Mumbai
Whether CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,06,226/- being deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961. - Whether CIT (A) erred in holding that an advance received in the grab of share application money is beyond purview of section 2(22)(e) of IT Act, 1961.
B.T.Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Kolhapur
the assessee could certainly claim the deductions under the provision of Section 80IA. One has to see the substance and not the Form Essentially, though it was a Joint Venture, it was converted into assessee's venture. The Other Venturer withdrew and the entire work was executed by the assessee though in the name of Joint Venture. The Joint Venture is nothing but the venture of the assessee company and the other person not being a party after withdrawing the question of Joint Venture does not arise. The Venture was fully carried out by the assessee and it was entirely executed by the assessee company. Taking the substance of the transaction, the assessee are entitled to all the profits in respect of the contract executed by them, hence the assessee would certainly be entitled to deduction under the provisions of 80IA as they have fulfilled all the other conditions
M/s IHG IT Services (India) Private Limited Vs. ITO, New Delhi
Special Bench: Whether prior to insertion of second proviso to Section 92C(2), the benefit of 5% tolerance margin as prescribed under proviso to Section 92C(2) of the IT Act, 1961 for the purposes of determining the arm’s length price of an international transaction is allowable as a standard deduction in all cases, or is allowable only if the difference is less than 5%?
M/s. Hamon Shriram Cottrell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Mumbai
whether the DRP is empowered to modify the TPO’s order to the prejudice of the assessee when the objections have been taken against the draft order in terms of section 144C(2) of the Act. The stand of the assessee is that when it approaches the DRP for seeking some relief against the proposed TP adjustments, the authority can only grant some relief, if permissible, but has no power to make enhancement.
M/s Clifford Chance Vs. Asstt. DIT (IT), Mumbai
Special Bench: Whether insertion of Explanation to section 9 by way of amendment by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01-06-1976, changes the position of law, as far as the assessee is concerned?
Sojitz India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, New Delhi
(a) Whether the TPO on facts was justified to treat the indenting activity at par with the trading activity ; - (b) If the answer to the query posed in (a) is “yes” then were the margins earned in the trading activity by the assesssee with non AEs correctly applied to the indenting activity with AEs ; - (c) If the answer to the query posed in (b) is “yes” then would the ‘costs’ referred to in Rule 10B (1) (e) (i) be the FOB value of goods on the facts of the present case or would it be the operating cost of the assessee; - (d) if the answer posed to the query in (a) is “no” then is there any justification on facts in applying the margins earned in the trading activity to the profits of indenting activity for working out the Arm’s Length Price.
Dynatron Private Limited Vs. Dy. CIT, Mumbai
the bona fides of the assessee’ s conduct are exhibited by the payment of TDS soon after the default stood brought to its notice by its tax auditor, per the auditor’s report which forms part of its return. The same would weigh in favour of the assessee, so as to constitute a reasonable explanation in terms of Explanation (1B) to section 271(1)(c), saving penalty.
Bhushan Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Delhi
whether the assessee while computing book profits u/s 115 JB of the Act, has to reduce book profits in terms of Clause (iv) of Explanation I to S.115 JB, deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act which is computed on profits arrived at, in accordance with provisions of Part I and Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956 or whether quantum of deduction u/s 80 HHC has to be computed with reference to the profits computed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act
M/s. Aishloni Copper Alloys Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ITO, Mumbai
Whether CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80-IB on the job works received by the assessee from the outside parties? - Whether CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80-IB holding that section 80-IB does not distinguish between manufacturing activities carried on for own purpose or for others on job work basis?
Lumax Industrues Ltd. Vs. ACIT, New Delhi
Royalty payment cannot be disallowed on the basis of the so-called benefit test and the domain of the TPO is only to examine as to whether the payment based on the agreement adheres to the arm’s length principle or not. That being so, the action of the TPO in the present case, to make the disallowance mainly on the ground of the benefit test, is unsustainable in law.
Hero MotoCorp Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi
whether the gains that arose to the assessee from investment in debt mutual funds/PMS/ shares are to be taxed under the head “business income” or under the head “capital gains”. - deduction on account of provision towards medical reimbursement / leave travel allowance aggregating to Rs.4.12 crores in respect of subsisting liability has been correctly claimed by the assessee and no portion of the same was disallowable
M/s. Biocon Limited Vs. Dy. CIT (LTU), Bangalore
Special Bench: discount on issue of Employee Stock Options is allowable as deduction in computing the income under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession’
M/s. New Bombay Park Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (International Taxation) TDS, Mumbai
amount receivable by the foreign company in respect of off shore services in connection with the turnkey project executed in India did not fall within the purview of section 9(1)(vii) as the entire services were rendered outside India though utilized in India; further, assessee’s PE had nothing to do with the services and, therefore, consideration received by the assessee in rendition of such services was not taxable in India.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher Vs. ITO, New Delhi
arrears of professional fee received by the assessee after he had discontinued his legal profession on being elevated as a Judge of the High Court ar not subject to tax.