The Chamber of Tax Consultants Vs CBDT (Bombay High Court) 1. These Petitions involve similar issues. The Petitioners have challenged certain portion of the central action plan formulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’, for short). This document contains Chapter 3 pertaining to litigation management. This Chapter provides the target for Appeals to […]
KSS Limited (formerly known as K Sera Productions Ltd.) Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Where the money was routed through AE by the assessee for the purpose of acquisition of distributorship, the back to back agreements, the contents thereof and most significantly, the fact that neither at the point of payment nor at […]
Mandhana Industries Ltd Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) On reading the provisions contained in Chapter XIX-A of the Act, a clear picture that emerges is that an assessee can apply for settlement of a case as long as same is pending. Once such an application is filed (and in case of application filed before […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Monsanto India Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Tribunal recorded that the Non Compete Agreement was part of the agreement for the sale of the business. Under this Agreement, the Assessee could be seen to have transferred the right to manufacture the product in question. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the opinion that […]
Merely because the investment was considerably large and as noted, several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through P5AHIML would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device.
What was given to the retiring partners was money representing the value of their share in the partnership and no capital asset was transferred on the date of retirement. Therefore, no capital gains or profit could arise & section 45(4) had no application.
Pr. CIT Vs. M/s ITD Cemindia JV (Bombay High Court) The employees and personnel deputed by the company giving such workers on loan to the assessee company continued to be the employer, the assessee merely reimbursed the expenditure in terms of salary structure of the employees to the employer company. There was, therefore, no question […]
Requirement of the formation of the opinion as to the special audit being in the interest of the Revenue continues to apply before and after the amendment. Nevertheless, the basic essential requirements of exercising the powers have been substantially widened by the legislature by way of such amendment.
Hon’ble Bombay High Court (HC) held that the transfer pricing officer (TPO) cannot suo-motu assume jurisdiction to determine the arm’s length price (ALP) of specified domestic transactions (SDT) not referred to him.
Precilion Holdings Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: AO was not permitted to reopen assessment merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material available at the time of original scrutiny assessment as there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose truly and […]
