INCOME TAX DUE DATES-MARCH 2022

[Source: www.incometaxindia.gov.in]

Date Nature of Compliance
02nd March Due date for furnishing of challan-cum-statement in respect of tax deducted under section 194-IA/194IB/194M in the month of January, 2022
07th March Deposit of tax deducted/collected for the month of February, 2022.
15th March Fourth installment of advance tax for the assessment year 2022-23
15th March Due date for payment of whole amount of advance tax in respect of AY 2022-23 for assessee covered under presumptive scheme of section 44AD/44ADA
15th March Due date for filing of return of income for AY 2021-22 if the assessee (not having any international or specified domestic transaction) is:

(a) corporate-assessee or

(b) non-corporate assessee (whose books of account are required to be audited) or

(c) partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited or the spouse of such partner if the provisions of section 5A apply.

The due date for furnishing of return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 has been extended to February 28, 2022 vide Circular no. 17/2021, dated 09-09-2021

The due date for filing of return of income has been further extended to March 15, 2022 vide Circular No. 01/2022, dated 11-01-2022

15th March Return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 in the case of an assessee if he/it is required to submit a Report under section 92E pertaining to international or specified domestic transaction(s)

The due date for furnishing of return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 has been extended to February 28, 2022 vide Circular no. 17/2021, dated 09-09-2021

The due date for filing of return of income has been further extended to March 15, 2022 vide Circular No. 01/2022, dated 11-01-2022

17th March Due date for issue of TDS Certificate for tax deducted under section 194-IA/194IB/194M in the month of January, 2022​
30th March Furnishing of challan-cum-statement in respect of tax deducted under 194IA/194-IB/194M in the month of February, 2022
30th March Due date for linking of Aadhaar number with PAN

The due date for linking of Aadhaar number with PAN has been extended to March 31, 2022 vide Notification S.O. 3814(E), dated 17-9-2021​

31st March ​ Country-By-Country Report in Form No. 3CEAD for the previous year 2020-21 by a parent entity or the alternate reporting entity, resident in India, in respect of the international group of which it is a constituent of such group
31st March Country-By-Country Report in Form No. 3CEAD for a reporting accounting year (assuming reporting accounting year is April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021) by a constituent entity, resident in India, in respect of the international group of which it is a constituent if the parent entity is not obliged to file report under section 286(2) or the parent entity is resident of a country with which India does not have an agreement for exchange of the report etc.
31st March Filing of belated/revised return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 for all assessee (provided assessment has not been completed before March 31, 2021)

The due date for filing of belated/revised return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 has been extended to March 31, 2022 vide Circular no. 17/2021, dated 09-09-2021

31st March Filing of application in Form 10A for registration/ provisional registration/ intimation/ approval/ provisional approval of Trust, institutions or Research Associations, etc. (which was required to be filed on or before 30-06-2021)

The due date for filing of application in Form 10A has been extended to March 31, 2022 vide Circular no. 16/2021, dated 29-08-2021

31st March Filing of application in Form 10AB for conversion of provisional registration into regular registration or renewal of registration/approval after five year of registration/approval of Trust, institution, etc. (which was required to be filed on or before 28-02-2022)

The due date for filing of application in Form 10AB has been extended to March 31, 2022 vide Circular no. 16/2021, dated 29-08-2021

DOMESTIC TAX CASE LAWS

SUPREME COURT

1. Since acceptance of freebies by medical practitioners was punishable as per circular issued by Medical Council of India under MCI regulations, 2002, gifting of such freebies by assessee-pharmaceutical company to medical practitioners would also be prohibited by law and thus, expenditure incurred in distribution of such freebies would not be allowed as a deduction in terms of Explanation 1 to section 37(1).

[Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 286 (SC)]

2. Where assessee had declared undisclosed income under “Income Declaration Scheme, 2016” and paid 2 installments under the scheme, but failed to pay the 3rd installment in time and extension of time was refused by HC, in the peculiar facts of the case, he is to be allowed his limited plea that he be given benefit of the amounts deposited towards first two installments while reckoning his tax liability after the revised assessment.

[Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta v CBDT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 209 (SC)]

3. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where Assessing Officer without recording any reason accepted assessee’s claim that subsidy received by it in a scheme of State Government was capital in nature, given complex nature of subsidy, such unreasoned order passed by Assessing Officer was ex facie erroneous and potentially prejudicial to revenue, therefore, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded.

[L G Electronics India (P.) Ltd. v Pr. CIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 330 (SC)]

4. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where reasons supplied by Assessing Officer for reopening of assessee’s assessment only referred to a need to verify documents and reasons supplied by Assessing Officer did not show that income had escaped assessment, impugned initiation of re-assessment proceedings was unjustified.

Pr. CIT v Sheetal Dushyant Chaturvedi [2022] 134 taxmann.com 328 (SC)]

Notice issued in SLP filed against High Court ruling that where AO made addition on account of a huge amount of cash deposited in bank account of assessee, since Tribunal found that along with deposits made by assessee there were also simultaneous withdrawals from its bank account leaving behind a negligible balance which showed that such deposits and withdrawals from bank represented trading activities of assessee, Tribunal was justified in estimating income only at rate of 2 per cent of such amount deposited with bank.

[Pr. CIT v Shitalben Saurabh Vora [2021] 133 taxmann.com 442 (SC)]

********

HIGH COURT

1. Reassessment notice issued under section 148 after 1 April 2021 without complying with mandatory procedure prescribed under section 148A was to be quashed.

[Dharmendra Gupta (Huf) v ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 219 (Rajasthan-HC)]

2. Grant of only 48 hours to submit response to SCN is violation of principles of natural justice.

[Sree Narayana Dharma Sabha Sreyas v National E- Assessment Centre [2022] 135 taxmann.com 218 (Kerala-HC)]

3. Market rent isn’t sole yardstick to treat ‘rent’ as inadequate to invoke deeming provision of Sec. 13(2)(b).

[CIT v Hamdard National Foundation (India) [2022] 135 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi-HC)]

4. HC condoned delay of 6 years in filing revised ITR as AO didn’t pass rectification order to allow assessee’s claim.

[Devendra Pai v Asstt. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 196 (Karnataka-HC)]

5. Where perusal of reasons recorded by Assessing Officer for reopening assessment of assessee indicated that he had relied upon facts and figures available in audited account and Tax Audit Report which were already filed along with return of income during original assessment, thus, there was no new tangible material available on record to conclude that income had escaped assessment, impugned reopening notice issued against assessee after four years from relevant assessment year was unjustified.

[Acron Developers (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 191 (Bombay-HC)]

6. Reassessment notice issued on question of facts can’t be challenged before High Court.

[Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 304 (Madras-HC)]

7. AO isn’t entitled to reopen assessment based on very same material which was considered originally.

[Vodafone Idea Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 169 (Bombay-HC)]

8. Bank guarantee commission is a fee charged by bank for having rendered banking services and cannot be treated as a commission or brokerage under section 194H.

[CIT v ITD Cementation India Ltd. [2022] 135 taxmann.com 190 (Calcutta-HC)]

9. The reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Act served on the petitioners on or after 1-4-2021 are set aside having been issued in reference to the un-amended provisions. Department would be with liberty to the assessing authorities to initiate reassessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after making all the compliances as required by law, if limitation for it survives.

[Vellore Institute of Technology v CBDT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 285 (Madras-HC)]

Income Tax Due Dates and Case Law Updates - March 2022

10. Opinion of internal audit party of income-tax department cannot be recorded as information within meaning of section 147(b) for purpose of reopening assessment; therefore, reopening of assessment on basis of audit objection that assessee-bank created provision for standard asset/advances under general loan loss provision excluding provision for NPA and claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and in that way assessee was putting aside money by creating provision for standard asset/advances to meet unascertained liability, was bad in law.

[Pr. CIT v Yes Bank Ltd. [2022] 135 taxmann.com 161 (Bombay-HC)]

11. Where assessee, a vegetable vendor, collected cash from wholesale market and deposited same in bank account and Assessing officer passed assessment order treating said deposit as unexplained money of assessee, since alternate statutory remedy by way of appeal under section 246A was available to assessee, writ petition filed against assessment order was not maintainable.

[Arunachalam Nadar Muthuraj v ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 162 (Madras-HC)]

12. No reassessment based on evidence that was made available before AO while applying for nil TDS certification.

[Reuters India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 80 (Bombay-HC)]

13. AO shouldn’t act as a mere tax-gatherer; Stay application should ordinarily be disposed of in assessee’s favour.

[Harsh Dipak Shah v UOI [2022] 135 taxmann.com 242 (Gujarat-HC)]

14. No reassessment merely on info. from Director (Inv.) that certain entity had entered into suspicious transactions.

[Reynolds Shirting Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 78 (Bombay-HC)]

15. Where Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under section 144B without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to assessee, impugned assessment order was to be set aside.

[Fifth Field Realtors (P.) Ltd. v National e-assessment centre [2022] 135 taxmann.com 76 (Madras-HC)]

16. Claim of interest & dep. allowed by AO couldn’t be challenged before HC if no question of law arises.

[Pr. CIT v Varha Infra Ltd. [2022] 135 taxmann.com 77 (Rajasthan-HC)]

17. Where land sold by assessee was situated beyond 8 kms from local limits of any municipality or cantonment board, it would certainly not fall within definition of capital asset. No sec. 263 revision if AO accepted claim that land was agricultural land after considering material on record.

[CIT v Chandan Magraj Parmar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 55 (Bombay-HC)]

18. Notice u/s 143(2) cannot initiates assessment proceedings for a period covered by RP approved by NCLT under IBC.

[Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v UOI [2022] 135 taxmann.com 188 (Telangana-HC)]

19. Sum diverted by trust for personal benefit of an interested party rightly treated as income.

[Ilahia Trust v CIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 346 (Kerala-HC)]

20. Grounds can’t be raised for first time before High Court if same was never raised before Tribunal.

[Pr. CIT v Surya Textech [2022] 134 taxmann.com 349 (Himachal Pradesh-HC)]

21. Where notice under section 147 was issued to assessee on ground that mistakes had occurred in assessment order in over-assessing business loss of assessee, since reopening was made on issues which were under appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) in original assessment, reassessment proceedings in subject assessment year were contrary to second proviso to section 147(1).

[Pr. CIT v Kerala State Electricity Board [2021] 133 taxmann.com 440 (Kerala-HC)]

22. Once AO has raised a query during assessment proceedings and assessee has disclosed all primary facts and AO has not rejected the assesssee’s response, then AO is deemed to have considered assesseee’s submissions even if he has not discussed them in his order. If subsequently assessment is reopened based on same material on record without bringing in new material, it amounts to reopening based on mere change of opinion and amounts to review of earlier assessment order passed by predecessor AO by successor AO. Such review is not permissible u/s 147.

[Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 143 (Bombay-HC)]

23. Power available to Tribunal under section 254(2) is not limited to a mistake committed by Tribunal and amendment to order of Tribunal can also be made, if it is triggered on account of a mistake of counsel for parties.

[Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi-HC)]

24. Rental earned from P&M given on lease under rehabilitation scheme is taxable as business income.

[CIT v Premier Tyres Ltd. [2021] 133 taxmann.com 432 (Kerala-HC)]

************

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

1. Amendments in section 36(1)(va) and section 43B brought vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1-4-2021 are prospective in nature. For assessment year 2019-20, where employees share of contribution to ESI was not paid within due date as mentioned under section 36(1)(va) but same was deposited before due date of filing return under section 139(1), deduction would be allowed.

[Prakash Pai Kochikar v Asstt. DCIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 217 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

2. Where order of Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) got merged with order of Tribunal, rectification of a mistake being apparent from record could only be effected in order of Tribunal and not in order of Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals).

[Khyati Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 200 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)]

3. Explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B are applicable only from 1-4-2021, these provisions impose a liability on an assessee, hence, could not be construed as applicable with retrospective effect unless legislature specifically said so.

[Kunamneni Technologies (P.) Ltd. v ACIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 199 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

CIT cannot invoke section 263 on a matter considered by CIT(A) in view of doctrine of merger especially when Revenue’s appeals on it has been dismissed by ITAT due to low tax effect. Revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised on a matter considered by CIT(A) when he has directed AO to make additions on a matter, as essential ingredient.

[Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v Pr. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 335 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

5. Receipt of security deposit under JDA doesn’t trigger tax liability unless possession of property is transferred.

[Dy. CIT v Nagam Suguna [2022] 135 taxmann.com 198 (Hyderabad – Trib.)]

6. Clause (iia) of section 32(1) clearly provides that additional depreciation equal to 20 per cent of actual cost of plant or machinery shall be allowed as deduction, however, if plant and machinery eligible for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) was put to use for less than 180 days during financial year under consideration and, therefore, only 50 per cent of allowable additional depreciation could be claimed in that year, balance 50 per cent could be availed in subsequent year.

[Dy. CIT v National Engineering Industrial Ltd. [2022] 135 taxmann.com 193 (Kolkata – Trib.)]

7. Assessee could not be denied deduction under section 80G merely because underlying donation forms part of CSR as it would lead to double disallowance.

[Sling Media (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 164 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

8. Provisions of ‘angel tax’ is applicable in year of issue of shares and not year of receipt of premium.

[Medicon Leather (P.) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 165 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

9. Penalty for non-payment of TDS can’t be deleted unless financial difficulties were proved with facts & figures.

[Deccan Charters (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 128 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

10. Interest on late payment of TDS isn’t eligible for deduction as business expenses.

[TUV Rheinland NIFE Academy (P.) Ltd. v ACIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 127 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

11. Where assessee developer, following project completion method, had disclosed advance received for sale of property and since during year under consideration, project was not completed, assessee was under bona fide belief that there was no turnover, gross receipt, etc., for purpose of section 44AB, penalty under section 271B could not have been levied.

[Smt. Sushila Sureshbabu Malge v ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 116 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

12. Employee’s contribution to ESI/PF deposited for AY 2018-19 before filing of ITR is eligible for deduction.  Amendments by way of Explanation 5 to section 43B and Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) are prospective in nature.

[Bromide Chemical Industries v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 79 (Jabalpur – Trib.)]

13. Order passed by National Company Law Tribunal under section 31 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has overriding effect over anything inconsistent contained in Income-tax Act and it shall be binding on all respective entities including other stakeholders, which include Central Government, State Government and other local bodies.

[Palogix Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v Asstt CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 73 (Kolkata – Trib.)]

14. FA 2012 amendment providing 16 years for reassessment applies to cases that are closed as of 01-04-12.

[Dy. CIT v Dilip J. Thakkar [2022] 135 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

15. Sum paid to remove encumbrance to a property is an allowable deduction while computing capital gains.

[Mahesh Pratapsingh Asher v ACIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 74 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

16. Sales commission related to prior year isn’t allowable in absence of proof that it was contingent on realization of proceeds.

[Meena Circuits (P.) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 54 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)]

17. Discount on shares allotted by assessee to its employee under ESOP Scheme is revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1). Therefore, Delhi Tribunal allows deduction of discount on issue of ESOPs; follows Karnataka HC ruling in case of ‘Biocon’.

[ACIT v People Strong HR Services (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 351 (Delhi – Trib.)]

18. Where assessee had not claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) in its return of income, it could not be allowed such deduction in view of condition imposed under section 80A(5) even though it was otherwise eligible for such deduction.

[Shree Datta Prasad Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. v ITO [2022] 134 taxmann.com 324 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

19. Powers of Commissioner (Appeals) are co-terminus with powers of Assessing Officer and that he is empowered to call for any details or documents which he deems necessary for proper adjudication of issue.

[ITO v Tata Teleservices Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 323 (Delhi – Trib.)]

20. In case of co-operative credit society, income to which benefit of section 80P(2)(a)(i) is not allowed, basic exemption of Rs. 50,000 as provided in section 80P(2)(c)(ii) must be granted.

[Baroda Citizen Community Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. v ITO [2022] 134 taxmann.com 290 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)]

***********

INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CASE LAWS

1. In Article 12 (3) of India-Malaysia Treaty, it is the term “Secret Formula or process’ which is used, and not the term “process”. Therefore, the definition of “process” in Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot be incorporated in the treaty, because then the meaning of word “secret” given in Treaty would become redundant.

[Asstt. CIT v Viacom 18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 135 taxmann.com 321 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

2. Sum received by NR for providing engineering designs not taxable as FTS if make available clause isn’t satisfied.

[Autoliv ASP Inc. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi – Trib.)]

3. Sum recovered from Indian affiliate for software used to provide services to various group entities is royalty.

[Rieter Machine Works Limited v ACIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 326 (Pune – Trib.)]

4. Sum paid to NR for use of its Information Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure is royalty. Hence, the disallowance is justified for non-deduction of TDS from payment to Netherlands entity for use of its ICT infrastructure.

[Vanderlande Industries (P.) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 144 (Pune – Trib.)]

5. Where assessee-advocate had claimed deduction on account of payment made to various persons/entities outside India towards professional/technical fee, since part of payments were in nature of reimbursement and payment made for official purpose and trade fair services and balance payments made to non-resident attorneys which were neither in nature of interest, nor in nature of royalty, or FTS, there was no obligation on assessee to deduct tax at source and therefore, assessee was not required to withhold tax on said payments.

6. Section 40(a)(ia) encompasses both fee for technical services and fees for professional services, however, section 40(a)(i) is applicable only in case of failure to deduct tax on payments made for FTS.

[Chander Mohan Lall v Asstt. CIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi – Trib.)]

7. Where Indian company only renders support services which enable assessee in turn to render services to their clients abroad, this outsourcing of work to India would not give rise to a fixed place PE.

[ESPN Star Sports Mauritius SNC et Compagnie v Dy. CIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi – Trib.)]

8. Where evidence being sought to be used for reopening assessment against the assessee does not even pertain to the Assessment Year under consideration but pertains to earlier assessment year for which reopening was upheld by ITAT, reassessment notice and reassessment order is to be quashed. Reopening assessment for every assessment year requires fresh tangible material for that assessment year leading to fresh formation of belief that income escaped assessment for that assessment year. Assessment for any Assessment Year cannot be reopened on the basis of evidence/ tangible material related to earlier Assessment Years even if reopening for those assessment years was upheld by ITAT.

[Bentley Nevada Inc. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 58 (Delhi – Trib.)]

9. Where assessee-foreign company provided offshore maintenance and support services to Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL), and nature of services provided were repetitive in nature, it could not be concluded that said services make available any technical knowledge, expertise, skill, know-how or processes to PGCIL and receipts from PGCIL would not qualify as fees for included services under article 12(4) of India US DTAA.

[GE Energy Management Services Inc. v Asstt. DIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 173 (Delhi – Trib.)]

10. Where assessee-foreign company entered into a contract with North Delhi Power Limited (NDPL) for offshore supply of software licenses, since no copyright had been transferred to NDPL and only right to use software was given, payment towards software license would not qualify as royalty services even if connected with such software and said payments would also not qualify as FIS under article 12 of India US DTAA.

[GE Energy Management Services Inc. v Asstt. DIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 173 (Delhi – Trib.)]

*********

TRANSFER PRICING CASE LAWS

1. Where draft order under section 144C was issued by revenue without taking into account assessee’s response to show cause notice, said draft order was to be set aside with direction to revenue to proceed further from show cause notice stage and complete assessment considering response of assessee.

[BASF Catalysts India (P.) Ltd. v National e-Assessment Centre [2022] 135 taxmann.com 166 (Madras-HC)]

2. Where pursuant to TPO making adjustments on account of provision for software development services and purchases of raw material for SIM card assemblying to assessee company’s income, AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee, since reason for making such adjustments was denial of capacity utilization claimed by assessee, same could not tantamount to filing of return without good faith and due diligence so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee, thus, impugned penalty order was to be set aside.

[Pr. CIT v Giesecks & Devrient (India) (P.) Ltd. [2022] 135 taxmann.com 130 (Delhi-HC)]

3. Where assessee had claimed foreign exchange loss as non-operative cost during year under consideration, however, in earlier years had treated same as operative in nature, since there was no consistency in assessee’s approach towards treating foreign exchange loss as operative or non-operative expense and no reason for such shift in stand was provided, said loss was to be treated as operative only.

[Doowon Automotive Systems India (P.) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 197 (Chennai – Trib.)]

4. Working capital adjustment has to be allowed on the basis of actual without any restriction. Rule 10B(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the IT Rules’ for short), provides that an adjustment ought to be provided for any differences in the economic factors between the tested party and the comparables. A working capital adjustment is one such adjustment which is to be applied in order to adjust for the differences between the working capital positions of the tested party and of the comparable. The IT Rules do not provide for any cap or upper limit to such adjustments.

[UL India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 320 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

5. Where a company has passed all filters applied by TPO, same could not be excluded from list of comparables solely on basis that its operations lie in different geographical areas, which was not even a filter used by TPO.

[Samsung R&D Institute India Bangalore (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 353 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

6. Where assessee entered into international transaction of purchase of raw materials from its AE and filed letter before TPO giving cost of sales and other indirect cost, TPO could not have rejected CPM as MAM only on ground that there was absence of gross margins of assessee and manner in which it was computed.

[A.O. Smith India Water Products (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 82 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

7. Differences in working capital requirements of the international transaction and the uncontrolled comparable transactions is a difference which will materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market. Therefore, in view of Rule 10B(3),working capital adjustment should be allowed for comparability purposes whenever Transactional Net Margin Method is used for calculation of Arm’s Length Price.

[Bharat Vijaykumar Jain (HUF) v Dy. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 182 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

8. Where TP adjustment were made to assessee’s ALP viewing that business support services rendered by assessee to its AE should be treated as separate segment and mark-up should have been charged on same, onus was entirely on assessee to bring material on record in support of its claim that invoice raised included mark-up of 12 per cent on all types of cost, including business support cost and, thus, matter was to be remanded back for de novo adjudication.

[BBC World Service India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi – Trib.)]

9. Where assessee-company, engaged in business of manufacture & sale of paper, had set up a Captive Power Plant (CPP) to meet power requirements of its paper manufacturing unit which also availed power from SEB, said transaction being in nature of specified domestic transaction, transfer price of power supplied by CPP was to be benchmarked at annual average of landed cost at which power was being purchased by manufacturing unit from SEB.

[Star Paper Mills Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 177 (Kolkata – Trib.)]

*************

Disclaimer: Above said information are taken from publically available resources and believed to be accurate.

Author Bio

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Telegram

taxguru on telegram GROUP LINK

Review us on Google

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2022
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930