The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above cited case held that even in mercantile system of accounting an item would be regarded as accrued income only if there is certainty of receiving it and not when it has been waived. Earning of the income, whether actual or notional, has to be seen from the viewpoint of a prudent assessee.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above cited case held that merely because a part of surplus was invested in mutual funds it cannot mean that it would render the principle of mutuality inapplicable more so when the invested money has to be utilized for the furtherance of association’s objectives
The ITAT Delhi in the above cited case held that the need , rendition and benefit test for services availed by the assessee from associated enterprises should be applied having regard to the assessee’s business and not in a generic manner. TPO should have given due thought to the requirements ,benefits and manner of rendition of services by AEs before jumping to the conclusion that
AAR held that a revenue sharing arrangement by creating a partnering person shall be liable to service tax if the partners are providing taxable service to one another in execution of partnering purpose even if the purpose of creating partnering person is non-taxable.
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that Advertising, Promotion and Marketing expenses (AMP) cannot be considered as international transaction unless there exist an agreement between the assessee and its AE to share/reimburse the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee in India.
HC held that when assessee participated in reassessment proceedings by furnishing the required documents and challenges the reopening subsequently before the high court by filing a writ petition then it would be not be appropriate for the high court to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction because the assessee has already chosen AO to exercise jurisdiction in the matter and to challenge his order before the appropriate appellate forum provided under the Act.
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that the surrounding circumstances and human probabilities attached to a transaction should be examined by considering the transactions as a whole. Therefore, AO cannot decide the geniuses only finding some unusual things but also bound to examine the things which are indicating that the claim of assessee may be genuine.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT cannot revise assessment for making afresh examination of an issue already examined by the AO who has taken one of the possible views because there has been no erroneous order which could ordered to be revised.
ITAT Amritsar held that the scrutiny of cases selected on the basis of information received through Annual Information Return (AIR) would be limited only to the aspects of information received through AIR.
The ITAT Delhi bench in the above cited case held that in case of completed assessment if notice u/s 153A is issued then addition can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search.
