Pages

Sunday, November 2, 2014

Four Important Verdicts On s. 41(1) Remission, Capital Gains And Transfer Pricing

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.


ITO vs. Sajjankumar Didwani (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 41(1): Unclaimed & unproven liabilities are deemed to have ceased and are assessable as income


(i) When the liability continues to subsist year after year, for several years, serious and valid doubts as to its existence or as representing an existing liability, may arise. This is as in the very nature of the events, nobody would ordinarily, i.e., without justifiable reason, not claim his dues, representing his hard earned money […]


HSBC Electronic Data Processing India vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

Transfer pricing principles on right of TPO to collect info u/s 133(6), exclusion of high profit comparables, adjustment for limited risk environment, exclusion of reimbursement costs for computing operation margins explained

(i) The TPO conducted search in the data bases for finding additional comparable by applying 25% employee cost filter. After examining the information obtained from the company u/s 133(6) of the Act the TPO treated it as comparable by observing that the company is engaged in IT enabled services and qualifies all the filters adopted […]


DCIT vs. M. Kalyan Chakravarthy (ITAT Hyderabad)

S. 2(1A): Gains from sale of agricultural land is exempt even though purchaser intends to use the land for commercial purposes

The only reason the A.O. treated the land as non-agricultural land was that 'agreement of sale' read with 'Irrevocable GPA' does not indicate that land retained the character of agriculture at the time of transfer. This was also the ground raised by Revenue in the appeal that M/s. Ramky Estates and Farms P. Ltd., may […]


AMD Research & Development Center vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

In view of the finding of the service-tax authorities that services were rendered, argument that amount paid is a reimbursement of actual cost without profit element is not acceptable and it is chargeable as "fee for included services"

Having held that the amount in question was remitted by the assessee company to ATI Technologies, Canada for certain benefits received by it in the form of services procured by ATI Technologies, Canada from Soctronics India Private Limited and provided to the assessee company, and it was not a case of either gratuitous payment made […]


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Harsha L. Tahilramani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Law on the tests to distinguish whether gains on sale of shares is short-term or business profits explained



No comments:

Post a Comment