ITAT has taken the view that it is open to the parties in Transfer Pricing cases to take a stand contrary to their TP study, if they contend that the stand taken in the TP study is contrary to facts or was erroneous. Such a claim cannot be disregarded only on the basis that it is contrary to Assessee’s own stand in the TP study.
ACIT Vs e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) TPO should choose the internal comparable in controlled transaction as against an external comparable The underlying object behind computing ALP of an international transaction is to find out the profits which such enterprise would have earned if the transaction had been with some third party […]
TCI Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench has held that loan on interest received from the sister concern to fulfill the enhanced requirement of working capital for export orders does not attract the provisions of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the […]
Qualcom Technologies Inc. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that Considering the assessment order of the AO wherein he has followed the findings given in earlier assessment years and considering the fact that the same agreement is being carried on since A.Y.2005-06, we do not find any reason in differing with the view taken by […]
Royal Western India Turf Club Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the original assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 06-02-2014. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26-03-2018. The […]
Where assessee claimed depreciation on new server, storage and accessories procured during the year on lease and the assessee incurred cost of such asset and was also paying interest on lease; the assessee would be eligible to claim such depreciation.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as mere making of a claim which was not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of assessee.
In the services rendered by the non-resident of procuring export order for the assessee, no knowledge has been provided to the assessee which could be exploited further by the assessee. In such circumstances, the services rendered by the non-resident cannot be held as ‘FTS’ under the India-France DTAA.
Giving advance to the employees as well as vendors were essential and wholly and exclusively linked to the business of the assessee. Since AO had not examined the claim of deduction u/s 37(1) r.w.s. 28, it was deemed appropriate to restore the issue to the files of AO for de novo consideration.
A transaction needs to be proved to be genuine by the person who substantially asserts the same. Once the assessee has been called upon to prove the genuineness of the trading of the shares leading to LTCG gain, the onus lies upon him which he fails to discharge in the present matter.
