Explore ITAT Delhi’s ruling in American Express India vs DCIT. Key issues: Comparable selection, transfer pricing adjustments, corporate tax matters.
Expenditure incurred on Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) for creating market intangibles including brand value in favour of Associated Enterprises was not considered as an international transaction as mere use of brand name or logo owned by the AEs by assessee would not automatically lead to influence that any expenses that assessee incurred towards AMP was only to enhance the brand and there was no cogent material to treat the incurring of AMP expenses as international transactions.
Jai Gopal Sondhi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We note that although the Assessing Officer has levied penalty in all the four cases for non-compliance of statutory notices, all the same he has proceeded to frame the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. We also note that the CIT(A), while dismissing the assessees’ appeals has […]
Surana Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 69C by considering the purchases as Bogus Purchase is justified in law? ITAT states that, in present case, the assessee has shown sales of the goods, or otherwise the goods are lying in the closing stock. If […]
Issue was as regards imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance by assessee with respect to statutory notices issued under section 142(1), when assessment was completed under section 143(3).
The issue under consideration is whether AO is correct in invoking section 50C where no reference to valuation officer despite being request made by assessee?
Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that operation of Explanation 7 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act is prospective, since it has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 and made effective from 01.04.2016 and, therefore, not applicable in the year under consideration.
DCIT Vs Infrasoft Technologies Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, during the year under assessment, the assessee has acquired certain business interest from M/s. KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.19,02,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.6,52,80,577/- and Rs.10,89,60,000/- has been shown as goodwill and customer contract respectively. It is also not in dispute […]
ACIT Vs Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The AO asked the assessee to explain why Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd (MIPL) should not be treated Dependant Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) in India and also why the assessment should not be completed as per the preceding assessment year since the facts remain the same. Rejecting the […]
Since distributor of the products did not have any right to change the content hence, the revenue derived on account of distribution of the products was business income and under no circumstance, could be held to be royalty. Assessee had already offered income as business income in terms of the MAP, therefore, the income as declared by assessee in accordance with the MAP and accepted by the Department in the earlier years had to be accepted.
