The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that inclusion of giant companies distorted arm’s length results for a small captive service provider. High-turnover companies were excluded to ensure meaningful comparability.
The Court held that failure of a creditor to file a return for the relevant year cannot alone justify a Section 68 addition. Once identity and banking trail are proved, the burden on the assessee stands discharged.
The Tribunal clarified that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted when sufficient interest-free own funds are available, reinforcing limits on Rule 8D application.
The issue was whether an assessment could be reopened after four years. The Court held that full disclosure by the taxpayer barred reassessment under Section 147.
The Tribunal ruled that high-turnover IT companies cannot be benchmarked against smaller captive service providers. Proper FAR analysis is essential to determine arm’s length price under TNMM.
The Tribunal ruled that once income has suffered tax in the hands of the real recipient, TDS credit cannot be withheld on technical grounds.
The Supreme Court ruled that payments made to prevent competition, even if providing enduring business benefits, are allowable revenue expenditures and not capital expenditures.
The Tribunal held that depreciation claims requiring factual verification cannot be disallowed through prima facie adjustments under section 143(1).
The Special Bench ruled that DDT under section 115-O is a distinct tax on the company, not on shareholders. Treaty dividend rates therefore cannot cap the DDT payable by an Indian company.
