Section 92D provides that every person who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, during a previous year, shall keep and maintain such information and documents, prescribed by the Board, as will assist the Assessing Officer/ Transfer Pricing Officer to compute the income arising from that transaction, having regard to the ALP. […]
Learn about the penalties under transfer pricing and how they apply to under reporting and misreporting of income.
It was held that DRP’s direction to the AO for carrying out a fresh examination of the claim of the assessee u/s.10A of the Act is in violation of the clear mandate of the provisions and hence cannot be countenanced.
Madras High Court quashes prosecution proceedings initiated under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 for non-disclosure/incomplete disclosure of foreign assets in the Return of Income.
The Delhi High Court in case of Bharti Mishra held that section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration within one year before the date of transfer of original asset, two years from the date of transfer or construction of new property within three years from the date of transfer. However, the Act does not prescribe any condition as to the date of commencement of construction of house property which may be commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset.
This decision highlights the fact that the taxpayers need to meticulously analyze the functions, assets and risks of activities undertaken. Pursuant to that, the taxpayers need to determine whether the activity can be clubbed or should be benchmarked separately.
Whether the usage of foreign Associated Enterprise (AE) brand name on the cars manufactured and sold by the tax payer amounted to rendering of brand promotion service, and whether it constituted an international transaction under section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(Act).
The assessee did not benchmark the royalty payment separately. On enquiry by the TPO, it relied on RBI approval given in 1995 and also on the fact that the assessee earned a gross profit of 41.6%. TPO applied Press Note 9 (2000 series) and restricted it to 1% on the plea that the payment was for use of trademark without transfer of technology.
The Tribunal granted 100 percent stay of demand because (a) the assessed income was more than 10 times the returned income. (Instruction 96 of 1969 was relied upon) & (b) The stand taken by the AO was at variance with the stand taken by TPO.
Only those payments, which have been made by the assessee for any purpose which is an ‘offence’ or which is ‘prohibited by law’, shall alone would be hit by the explanation to section 37
