The proviso to s. 92C (2) consists of two limbs. Under the first limb, where, through the Most Appropriate Method, more than one price is determined, the arithmetic mean of such price has to be taken to be the Arm’s Length Price in relation to the international transaction. The second limb gives “an option” to the taxpayer to take Arm’s Length Price which may vary from the arithmetic mean by an amount not exceeding 5% of such arithmetic mean. This option is applicable even to cases where the taxpayer intends to challenge the Arm’s Length Price taken as arithmetic mean and determined through the Most Appropriate Method. The argument of the Revenue that where the difference is much more than 5%, then the taxpayer cannot have the benefit of the said provision, particularly where the taxpayer has not accepted such arithmetic mean, is not correct. Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

Mysodet (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) -Where in respect of the asst. year 1990-91, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-HHC on traded goods on the proportion that the export turnover bore to the total turnover even though there were no profits from the export activity and the High Court held, relying on IPCA Laboratories vs. CIT 266 ITR 521 (SC), that in the absence of export profits deduction u/s 80-HHC was not available,

SET Satellite (Singapore) vs. DDIT (Bombay High Court) – Where the assessee had a ‘Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment’ (‘DAPE’) (“SET India”) in India and it was admitted by the Revenue that the assessee had paid ‘arms length’ remuneration to the said dependent agent but the Tribunal still held (106 ITD 75) that notwithstanding the taxability of the said dependent agent in accordance with domestic law, the assessee had to be assessed in respect of the profits attributable to the said DAPE, held, reversing the judgment of the Tribunal that

It has been decided that in all the Corporate cases selected for scrutiny as per the guidelines contained in the Action Plan document 2008-09 which have returned income of Rs.5 crore or more and where provisions of FBT apply, assessment order shall also be passed under section 115WE after scrutiny of all such cases.

CIT vs. Gold Coin Health – The recommendations of the Wanchoo Committee and the CBDT Circular make it clear that the amendment to Expl. 4 to s. 271(1)(c) was to make explicit what was otherwise implicit i.e. that penalty can be imposed even in a case where the assessment results in a loss.

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) expanded the scope of professional services to cover sportspersons, umpires and referees, making them liable for a higher tax deduction at source (TDS) at the rate of 10% against 1-2%.

Refund Banker is a scheme wherein a scheduled bank is authorised to issuerefund instruments, either in paper form or electronically, on behalf of theIncome-Tax department. Under this scheme, assessees benefit from faster tax refunds and direct credit into their bank accounts on the lines of dividend payments made bycorporates to shareholders. State Bank of India (SBI) is already operating as the ‘Refund Bank’ for the Income-Tax department in Delhi, Patna, Chennai,

As per instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), it is mandatory for deductors to file TDS/TCS statements with a threshold limit of Permanent Account Number (PAN) of deductees. To facilitate deductors who face problem in filing TDS returns because of insufficiency of PAN of the deductees and also to accommodate the deductees who have intimated their PAN, the Income Tax Department (ITD) has specified the following procedure for filing TDS/TCS returns

Your company could face a tax scrutiny if it had introduced fresh capital exceeding Rs 50 lakh last fiscal, or, as in the tax lingo, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. This is according to the new scrutiny norms by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

CIRCULAR NO 7/2008, Dated: August 1, 2008 In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 119 of Income-tax Act, 1961, Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that corporations which are established by a Central, State or Provincial Act for the welfare and economic upliftment of ex-servicemen and whose income qualifies for exemption from Income-tax u/s. 10(26 BBB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are hereby given exemption from Tax Deduction/Collection at Source on their receipts.