The Hon’ble Bombay High court in the above cited case held that a consideration receivable by the transferor which is contingent on happening of a future event the outcome of which is uncertain and cannot be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Assessee submitted the documentary evidence to show that after purchasing the property there was a civil suit filed by the other parties and the assessee could not complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was accordingly delayed.
This appeal filed by the Revenue raises questions with regard to whether transfer pricing adjustment consequent to arriving at Arms Length Price(ALP) is required to be done only in respect of the international transactions or this adjustment is to be done in respect of all the business transactions of the assessee i.e. at the entity level.
Bombay High Court held that as per agreement, the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years and the formula prescribed in the agreement itself makes it clear that the deferred consideration to be received by the assessee in the four years would be dependent upon the profits made by M/s. Unisol in each of the years.
Bombay High Court held that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source in respect of payment made towards demurrage charges in cases where section 172 of the IT Act applies. The Revenue did not dispute in the present case that section 172 applied.
High Court held that as the issue of service of notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) are concerned, it is an admitted position that the said notices were never served on the Petitioner. The Revenue seeks to justify service of these notices on the Petitioner by contending that they have served the said notices on the last known address of the Petitioner which was the address of Ingram Micro India [earlier known as Tech Pacific India], the downstream company of the Petitioner.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd. vs. DCIT/Union of India that in the Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.169/2014 dated 08.12.2015, it was held that before effecting deduction at source one of the aspects to be examined is whether such income is taxable in terms of the Income Tax Act.
High Court held that section 10(33) provides that any income by way of (i) dividends referred to in section 115-O; or (ii) income received in respect of the units from the Unit Trust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963; or (iii) income received in respect of units of a mutual fund specified under section 10(23D), shall be exempt from tax.
HC held that income tax officer to whom an application is made should give an acknowledgment of having received and accepted the application on face if the same is found in prescribed manner with prescribed details.
High Courtheld that the any action of revenue to recover taxes adopting coercive means is not permissible till the assessee’s application for stay under section 220(6) of the Act is disposed of. Further, an application for stay should be disposed off by a speaking order.
