Padam Prakash (HUF) vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi Special Bench). If the application filed by the assessee is viewed in the light of aforementioned judicial pronouncements, then it will become clear that the relief which is being sought by the assessee by way of impugned rectification application is not legally tenable for the reason that the Tribunal has no power to adjudicate upon subsequent application filed u/s 254(2). Here, it may be the case of the assessee that earlier order against which impugned rectification application is filed is also an order passed on subsequent application, then the only course permissible to the assessee is to file an appeal against that order and not to approach the Tribunal to contend that the said order was an invalid order, therefore it should be recalled.
Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of DCIT v. Select Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 1184 & 2460/Del/2008) (Judgment Date: 23 December 2010, Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) held that where a parent company merged with its subsidiary, the benefit of brought forward and set off of losses under Section 79 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) claimed by the amalgamated company, cannot be disallowed on the grounds that there was a change in the shareholding of more than 51 percent of the share capital of the subsidiary company since there was no change in control and management of amalgamated company pre and post merger.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of Airtech Private Limited (Appeal no. ITA 3591 Del )/2010) on documentation aspect of transfer pricing (TP). The Tribunal held that contemporaneous TP Documentation was to be maintained by the taxpayer annually as the transaction was separate and was influenced by changing market dynamics.
It is mandatory for the AO to issue notice u/s 143 (2). The issuance and service of notice u/s 143 (2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, the assessment order is invalid
Delhi Tribunal Ruling –- the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot determine the arm’s length price of an international transaction, which has not been referred to him by the Assessing Officer. When brand name is owned by the Associated Enterprise (AE) and the assessee incurs more than normal expenses on advertisement, marketing and promotion (AMP), the TPO cannot make adjustments considering that the AE did not reimburse the assessee for excess AMP expenses. [Amadeus India Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (2011-TII-22-ITAT¬DEL-TP)]
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Whirlpool India Holdings Ltd. v. DDIT [201 1-TII-15-ITAT-DEL-INTL] held that Branch Office set up in India which merely remunerated employees seconded by US group company does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in accordance with Article 5 of India- USA tax treaty (the tax treaty) and therefore was not taxable in India.
In principle, the CUP method (the traditional transaction method) is preferable to the other methods because all other things being equal, the CUP and traditional transactional methods lead to more reliable results vis-a-vis the results obtained by a
The learned CIT has also given one more reason that it is not comprehensible as to why not the assessee got itself registered as a society,if the motive of the assessee was to do activities of public charity. This reason given by the CIT is found, in
If the facts of the case are tested on the ratio of aforesaid decisions, in our considered opinion, the Id. Commissioner cannot deny renewal of registration on the ground that the assessee had claimed double deduction in respect of depreciation as well as capital expenditure i or had not applied the requisite income for the objects. If the assessee had claimed certain depreciation to which it was not entitled the recognition under section 80-G cannot be denied.
In a recent decision, in the case Menlo Worldwide Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2010-T11-164-ITAT-DEL-INTL](the “assessee”), the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) held that the recording the setting-off of sundry debtors agai
