Case Laws Part # 2 [Most of these
are announced during Jan 2012 to Sep 2012]
Basics of the IT Act
Case
Law on Basics of the Income Tax Act:
Compensation for fraud
occurring in India is taxable in India as ‘Other Income’.
‘Right
of action’ is different from ‘Cause of Action.’ Even though the plaintiffs had a right of action in the US, yet their cause of action arose or accrued in
India by reason of the alleged tort practiced by the company and its auditors
in India; Therefore, compensation accrued or arose in India within the meaning
of Sec 5(2), as right of compensation arose in India. Therefore, the same is
taxable as Income from Other Sources in India. [In IC, in re (2012) 24 Taxmann.com 317]
Residential
Status & Incidence of tax
Case Law on Residential
Status
The
general understanding in determining the residential status is to take into
account the date of arrival and the date of departure. In a recent decision,
the Mumbai Tribunal held that “Date of arrival has to be excluded if it is an
incomplete day” while determining the residential status of the assessee. [ITO Vs Fausta C.Cordeiro] [2012] [24
Taxmann.com 193] [Mumbai-Tribunal]
Case Law on Fees for
Technical Services
Incidence of tax
[Meaning of Fees for Technical Services]
It
may be noted that “Fees for technical services” U/S 9(1)(vii) does not include “Consideration for any construction,
assembly, mining or like project undertaken
by the recipient----------.” The
words used are like project undertaken by the recipient. Thus, where the
recipient had not undertaken the project then the benefit of exclusion cannot
be taken. Hence, in such cases it would be taxable U/S 9.
Thus in a case where A
had undertaken a contract in relation to mining and where certain services are
availed by the said ‘A’ from ‘B’, then any service rendered by ‘C’ to ‘B’ will
be treated as ‘Fees For Technical Services.’ On the other hand, if ‘C’ rendered
services directly to ‘A’, then it won’t be construed as ‘Fees For Technical
Services’ as the definition clearly excludes such an activity from its purview.
[M-1 Overseas Ltd., In re] [2012] [24
Taxmann.com 73] [AAR-New Delhi]
Capital
Gains
Case Law on indexation
on HUF property on partition
Where
a member receives the property from the HUF upon its partition, the indexation
benefit will start from the year in which the HUF acquired the property but not
the year in which the partition took place.
Thus, where the HUF
acquired the property prior to 1st April 1981 and transferred the
asset to its members on 2nd April 2007, it was held that indexation
is to be calculated w.e.f 1st April 1981 but not from 2nd
April 2007. [Smt.Shakuntala Somani Vs
ITO] [2012] [20 Taxmann.com 78] [Indore-Trib]
Case Law on Indexation
on UTI units: Whether indexation benefit is available on units of UTI?
No indexation for units
issued by UTI as the units are in the nature of bonds. [Dy CIT Vs Areez.P.Khambhatta] [2012] [17 Taxmann.com 51] [Ahmadabad –
Tribunal]
Case Law on Indexation
when the plot of land acquired by paying in installments
Where
the plot of land is acquired by paying sums in installments, then the HC held
that indexation benefit is to be counted from the date of each installment.
Readers may note that this method of computation is not applicable when the
person takes a loan from bank as in such a case, the seller of the property is
paid consideration in full. The purchaser pays to banker in installments. On the other hand, where the purchaser
directly pays in installments to the landowner and acquires the property, then
indexation is to be calculated w.r.t each installment. [Nirmal Kumar Seth Vs CIT] [2012] [17 Taxmann.com 127] [Mag-HC]
Set off & Carry
forward of Losses
Case Law on Loss of
firm cannot be set off against income of the successor partner:
The
assessee, an individual, took over the running business of a partnership firm,
in which he was a partner, including fixed assets, current assets and
liabilities. In his individual return, he claimed that he was entitled to set
off loss suffered by erstwhile partnership firm against his individual income.
The High Court held that as per the provisions of Sec 78(2), it is only person
who incurs or suffers loss who will be entitled to carry forward same and set
it off, and no other person except in
the case of succession by inheritance. Thus, the loss incurred by the firm
cannot be allowed in the individual’s hands as it is not a case of succession
by inheritance. [Pramod Mittal Vs CIT]
[2012] [19 Taxmann.com 24] [Delhi HC]
Deductions
Case Law: Ownership of
land is not mandatory for deduction U/S 80-IB (10):
In
CIT Vs Radhe Developers [2012] [17
Taxmann.com 156] [Guj-HC], the court held that to claim deduction U/S
80-IB(10), it is not necessary for the developer of property to buy land before
developing the same. It is enough if he undertakes development of property. So
long as he had taken full responsibilities for execution of development project
and profit or loss which might result from such execution belongs to him in
entirety, deduction U/S 80-IB is allowable.
Company
Assessment
Case
Law on assessment
Instance where the
Tribunal Held that AO can go behind the accounts, not prepared in accordance
with prescribed AS and Schedule VI:
The
assessee earned profit on sale of shares. It did not credit the same to profit
and loss account but directly credited to capital reserve Account in the
Balance Sheet. AO formed an opinion that as per Sec 115JB(2), assessee was
required to prepare P&L Account in accordance with Parts II and III of
Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956 and profit on sale of shares should have
been part of the profit and loss account. Consequently, he recomputed the
profit and brought profit on sale of shares to taxation under MAT provisions
U/S 115JB. The Tribunal upheld the action of the AO. [Sumer Builders (P) Ltd Vs DCIT] [2012] [19 Taxmann.com 43]
Case Law on book profit
Amalgamation Reserve
created on revaluation of asset not to be included in book profit for MAT:
Two
100% Subsidiary Companies were amalgamated with the assessee company. The
assessee company debited existing market value of WIP which had been taken
over. [WIP is taken over at Market Value]. The difference that arose due to
revaluation had been routed in balance sheet without bringing the same to
profit and loss account. AO recomputed the profit. The Tribunal held that the
action of the AO is wrong since the amount debited in profit and loss account
did not consist of any portion of reserve, the same cannot be added for the
purposes of book profit. Therefore, amount which was never routed through
profit and loss account could not be considered for the purposes of
determination of book profits U/S 115JB. [ITO
Vs United Estate (P) Ltd] [2012][20 Taxmann.com 588][Mumbai – Tribunal]
PFAS & PFAOP, LLP
Case Law on dilution of
partnership: Amount received for dilution of partnership share in favour of new
partner is not taxable at all:
Four
partners were admitted to a firm and they introduced Rs 3.50 Crores as their
capital contribution and the same was withdrawn as drawings equally among the
existing three partners whose shares were reduced as a result of admission of
new partners. The HC held that there is no provision in the Act for levying capital
gains in such situations. Hence, the same is not liable to capital gains tax. [CIT Vs P.N.Panjwani] [2012] [21
Taxmann.com 458] [Karnataka – HC]
Case Law on
Remuneration to partners
Remuneration to
partners – Whether Quantification is required? [Contrary Rulings]
Payment
of remuneration to partners cannot be allowed, if it has been left to be
determined by the partners at the end of the accounting period. [Sood Bhandari & Co Vs CBDT] [2012] [17
Taxmann.com 99] [P&H-HC]
Contrary ruling on the same subject:
Quantification of salary (as stipulated by
partners), according to determination of profit at the end of accounting year,
cannot bar them from claiming deduction within the parameter of law. Therefore,
partners are entitled to remuneration. [Eqbal
Ahmed & Co VS CIT](2005)278 ITR 255.
Case Law on deed of
partnership
Status
of firm cannot be denied when notarized copy of deed is furnished.
In
“CIT Vs Shakti Electrical Industries” [2012] [20 Taxmann.com 635] [MP][HC]”,
the assessee
filed its return in the status of firm. However, he could not produce certified
copy of the deed. AO denied the status of the PFAS and assessed the same as
PFAOP.
It was on record that
partnership deed duly authenticated by notary along with typed copy of deed
duly signed by all partners was submitted before the Assessing Officer during
the course of assessment proceedings.
The HC held that since
assessee had filed the deed duly authenticated by notary which was duly signed
by all partners, status of firm could not be denied.
HUF
Sums
received by coparcener on partition cannot be brought to tax:
The
Tribunal held that the money received by the assessee in her capacity as
coparcener and towards her share of the properties of HUF, on partition of HUF,
could not be said to be sum of money or property received without
consideration. The Right, Title and Interest of the coparcener in the assets of
the HUF would itself be a consideration. Therefore, the sum received by the
assessee towards her share as a coparcener of the HUF from the HUF on partition
of the HUF cannot be brought to tax. [Smt
Sudha V.Iyer Vs ITO] [2011] [15 Taxmann.com 234] [Mumbai-Tribunal]
Charitable Trusts
Case Law on Trusts
In the case of a trust,
deficiency in one year can be met with surplus in another year.
In
view of Sec 11(1)(a), expenditure incurred in earlier year can be met out of
income of subsequent year and utilization of such income for meeting
expenditure of earlier year would amount to such income being applied for
charitable / religious purposes. In view of the above definition, if a trust
receives Rs 100/- year 1 and applied Rs 150/- in Year 1, then the excess amount
spent in Year 1 can be carried forward for Year 2. [CIT Vs Shri Gujrati Samaj] [2012] [17 Taxmann.com 164] [MP High Court]
Case Law on Corpus Fund
of Trust
Corpus Fund is not
taxable even if misused by the trust:
In
“CIT Vs Sri Durga Nimishambha Trust
[2012][18 Taxmann.com 173][Karnataka-HC]”, the assessee received certain
amount as contribution towards corpus fund which was kept in fixed deposit.
Revenue treated said contribution towards corpus fund as income and levied tax.
The HC held that even if corpus fund was misused, it could not be levied
thereon. In such a situation, the proper course of action for the revenue would
be to seek the cancellation of registration granted U/S 12A.
Case Law on Trusts
A Trust received more
than the cut off limit of Rs 10 lakhs / Rs 25 lakhs – Whether exemption denied?
A
charitable trust registered U/S 12AA and having business income can continue to
enjoy tax exemption if the aggregate receipt from business does not exceed Rs
25 lakhs. The business may be unrelated to the charitable objects but the
income from such business, if meant for pursuing the charitable objects, is
eligible for tax exemption.
To
qualify under Sec 10(23C)(vi) exemption, holding of classes is not mandatory.
The High Court held
that holding of classes is not mandatory for an institution to qualify and to
be treated as an educational institution. If activity undertaken and engaged is
educational, it is sufficient.
Thus, where the
assessee conducted examinations for ICSE and ISC, awarded certificates to those
who passed such examination and conducted other incidental activities and where
the assessee’s income came from sources such as registration and affiliation
fees, examination fees, re-check and miscellaneous fees, the HC held that it is
eligible for getting registration U/S 12A. “[Council
for the Indian School Certificate Examination Vs DGIT] [2012] [20 Taxmann.com
505] [Delhi][HC]”.
Coaching classes for
distance education are not charitable activities, thus, exemption is not
allowed:
The Tribunal held that
the student who is appearing for open university / distance education can
prepare himself instead of going to a coaching classes. So a mere coaching class for preparing the
students to attend the examination conducted by the open university / other
university / distance education cannot be considered to be a regular and
systematic schooling within the meaning of Sec 2(15). Therefore, it cannot be
treated as charitable.
[DDIT
Vs Kuttukaran Foundation] [2012] [19 Taxmann.com 331] [Cochin – Tribunal]
Similarly, education
per se will not be a charitable activity unless it is carried out as a charitable endeavour and dedication. Therefore,
where an assessee carries on education on commercial lines, it cannot claim
status of charitable institution only for reason that it is engaged in an
educational activity.
Thus,
where the assessee trust was running an educational institution called “Preston
International College” approved by MS university. The assessee was also engaged
in other educational activities. The department found that conducting courses
and programs of distance and continuing education and running study centre for
and on behalf of the university and sharing the fees collected from the
students were in the nature of commercial activities.
[Professional
Education and Research Foundation Vs DIT(E)][2012][20 Taxmann.com 471]
[Chennai-Trib]
Case Law on Corpus
Donations – Essential ingredients:
The
Tribunal held that a donation in order to obtain the character of voluntary
contribution towards corpus fund must satisfy two basic conditions:
ª Establish
the identity of the donors; and
ª The
fact of the contribution towards corpus fund being voluntary and not for
anything in return to the donor. (i.e Donor should not expect anything in
return)
[ITO Vs Smt.Vidyawanti
Labhuram Foundation for Science Research and Social Welfare] [2012] [20
Taxmann.com 793] [Jodhpur – Trib]
Thus, the tax treatment
of various donations can be summed up as below:
ª Voluntary Contributions – Chargeable
to tax based on the application of income by trust. [i.e If 85% if applied,
then the trust’s income is exempted]
ª Corpus Donations – Not
chargeable to tax regardless of its application if it passes the twin tests (a)
Establish the identity of the donors; and (b) Donor should not expect anything
in return.
ª Anonymous Donations - Chargeable
to tax at flat rate ignoring the aspect of application towards the objects of
the trust. However, allowance is given U/S 115BBC for amounts prescribed under
that section.
Case Law on Trusts
It
is to be noted that the trust won’t get
the exemption status merely because part of its income is diverted to
prohibited category of person. [ACIT Vs
Idicula Trust Society] [2012] [21 Taxmann.com 144] [Delhi – Trib]
Case Law on
Registration of Trusts
Registration
of trust is not cancelled automatically when the receipts exceed the threshold
limit specified U/S 2(15). [Rajasthan
Housing Board Vs CIT] [2012] [21 Taxmann.com 77] [Jaipur – Trib]
Case Law on
Registration of Trusts
Similarly, registration
is not denied merely because settler is one of the beneficiaries but not the
only one.
It was held that where
the dominant object of the trust was to help the poor “parsis” and to donate to
educational institutions, registration U/S 12A was not deniable merely because
preference is given to poor relatives of the settler so long as it did not make
the poor relatives of the settler the only beneficiaries. [Manockjee Cowasjee Petit Charities Vs DIT(E)][2012] [21 Taxmann.com
456] [Mumbai – Trib]
Case Law on
Registration of Trusts
Aspect of application of income is
not to be seen at the time of granting of registration.
The twin conditions to
be satisfied at the time of granting of registration is (a) objectives of the
trust should be charitable and (b) the objectives should be genuine. Thus,
where the above two conditions are satisfied, the commissioner needs to grant
registration.
[Tishir
Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs CIT] [2012] [21 Taxmann.com 525] [Agra-Trib]
Case Law on Exemption
for Trusts
Holding of conference
in a luxury hotel cannot snatch away the exempted granted U/S 12A:
Merely because that the
donors were pharmaceutical companies and they deducted tax from the donations
to the impugned trust, would not convert the donations into a commercial
receipt on the basis of presumptive inferences.
Also, the benefit of
Sec 12A is not denied merely because, the conferences were held in 5 Star Hotels
by the trust.[Heart Care Management Vs
DIT(E)] [2012] [22 Taxmann.Com 105] [Delhi – Trib]
ROI
Case Law on filing
return of income
A non-resident derived
some taxable income in India. But his income is exempt from tax by virtue of
the specific provisions in the DTAA. Whether he is required to file return of
income?
Sol:
It may be noted that
once a non-resident derives any taxable income, he is liable to file return in
India unless there is any other provision exempting the non-resident from
filing return of income say the cases covered U/S 115A. Thus, if a non-resident
derived any income in India which is taxable as per the provisions of the Act
but which is exempt by virtue of specific provisions of the DTAA, he is
required to file the return of income. [Of course, in this case he will file
nil return of income.] [VNU
International B.V.] [2011] [198 Taxman 454] [AAR – New Delhi]
Case Law on
Res-Judicata
Where deduction was
allowed U/S 10A to the assessee undertaking by the AO without specifically
dealing with the eligibility of the assessee to the said claim, the AO can
re-open the assessment U/S 147 on the basis of subsequent information which
arose in a later year. [Siemens
Information Systems Ltd Vs ACIT] [2012]20 Taxmann.com 666] [Mumbai-HC]
Assessment
Procedures
Case Law on Proceedings
U/S 147
Whether
sanction of the CIT can be taken where it is required that sanction of the JCIT
is needed to initiate proceedings U/S 147? Where
sanction has been obtained from the CIT, instead of JC as required under 151(2)
before issuing notice U/S 148, notice issued shall be bad in law [R.P.Gupta & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO]. It is
so because when a particular authority has been designated to record his / her
satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who
should apply his / her independent mind to record his / her satisfaction. And
the satisfaction so recorded should be independent and not “borrowed” /
“dictated satisfaction”. [CIT Vs SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd][2012][17 Taxmann.com
138]
[However, the
department may take shelter U/S 292BB in such cases. Hence, the assessee needs
to challenge the same during the course of assessment proceedings itself such
that the department cannot take shelter U/S 292BB.]
Similarly, where the AO
wants to invoke powers U/S 148 based on the recordings found by another AO, the
invocation of powers U/S 148 would be bad in law. [In this case, AO of a
jurisdiction was dealing with a case relating the assessee and later he came to
know that he does not have any jurisdiction and hence transferred the case to
the AO having jurisdiction. Now the AO to whom the case was transferred wanted
to act based on the belief formed by the other AO. Held, proceedings in such a
case would be bad in law.] [ACIT Vs
Resham Petrotech Ltd] [2012] [21 Taxmann.com 161][Ahd-Trib]
Case Law on Reassement
Proceedings
Reassessment
proceedings are bad in law if time limit for issue of notice U/S 143(2) has not
expired. [Jora Singh Vs ITO] [2011] [16
Taxmann.com12] [Luck-Tribunal]
Search and seizure, IT Authorities
Case Law on Powers of
the Appellate Authorities
Interest
received which was compensatory in nature should not be taxed. The CIT(A)
should allow such claim the reduce the assessed income as his powers include
power to “Confirm / Reduce / Enhance /
Annul” the assessment.
The assessee, a retired
teacher, received a sum of Rs 10.92 lakhs with interest of Rs 3.29 lakhs,
awarded by the Calcutta High Court in a writ petition. The assessee was of the
impression that the amount received towards “Interest” was taxable and hence
filed the return offering the same to taxation.
Later on based on a
ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in “CIT Vs Charanjit Jawa” [2004]
[270 ITR 173] prayed that interest received as a result of order
of the HC was a non-statutory interest and was in the nature of damages /
compensation amounting to capital receipt and, hence, the same was not part of
the taxable income. The CIT(A) declined to accept such claim in the
appeal proceedings on the ground that once income which is offered in the
return of income by the assessee himself cannot be reduced at appellate stage.
The ITAT held that the contention of the CIT(A) is wrong as the CIT(A) has the
powers to “Confirm / Reduce / Enhance / Annul” the assessment. [Sec 251]. Also,
the Tribunal noted that no tax can be collected except by authority of law as
per Article 265 of the Constitution.
Case Law on
IT-Authorities
Cash
seized during search can be adjusted towards "Existing Liability” [Sec
132B]. In this context, whether advance tax amounts to “Existing Liability”.
Sol:
The
tribunal held that it is yes. [Nikka
Mal Babu Ram Vs ACIT] [2010] 41 SOT 407(Chd)]
As
per Sec 4, an assessee is chargeable to tax in respect of his total income.
Subsection (2) of Sec 4 prescribes that the income tax so chargeable shall be
deducted at source or payable under any provisions of the Act. Advance tax liability is governed by Sec 208
to Sec 210 of the Act. The relevant provisions also prescribe the dates and the
amount of tax required to be paid by the assessee. Therefore, the expression
‘Existing Liability’ in Sec 132B(1)(i) cannot be read to exclude a particular
tax liability, if it can be shown to have existed on a particular date. If the
liability to pay advance tax had arisen, it would certainly constitute a part
of the “Existing Liability” used in Sec 132B.
Hence, the department can adjust the same towards existing liability as
well as advance tax. Similar ruling was given in [CIT Vs Ashok Kumar] [2012] [19 Taxmann.com 93] [Punj & Har][HC]
The
HC held that “Continuous interrogation / recording of reasons of statement till late
night on second day of search is violation of human rights.” [CCIT Vs State of Bihar][2012][205 Taxman
232]
Also,
in another case the Gujarat High Court held that “Statement recorded U/S 132(4)
at midnight during search operation is not voluntary statement, and may
not be given weightage at the time of assessment after search. [Kailashben
Manharlal Choksi Vs CIT] [2008] [174 Taxman 466].
Case Law on Search and
seizure
AO
can retain not only towards the tax, interest amount but also towards “Penalty
amount” determined U/S 153A before release of the assets seized U/S 132. [Sree Balaji Refinery Vs DCIT] [2012] [20
Taxmann.com 183] [Kerala HC]
Case Law on principles
of natural justice:
The
HC held that “Continuous interrogation / recording of reasons of statement till late
night on second day of search is violation of human rights.” [CCIT Vs State of Bihar][2012][205 Taxman
232]
Also,
in another case the Gujarat High Court held that “Statement recorded U/S 132(4)
at midnight during search operation is not voluntary statement, and may
not be given weightage at the time of assessment after search. [Kailashben
Manharlal Choksi Vs CIT] [2008] [174 Taxman 466].
Appeals and Revisions
Case Law on Matters
before High Court:
Assessee
did not challenge the original block assessment order passed even though the
same was passed after the allowable time limit. He did not raise this ground
before the CIT(A) and ITAT. He wants to raise this additional ground for the
first time before the H.C. The Court held that a cross objection is not permitted in an appeal U/S 260A. [Smt. Jyothi Kumari Vs ACIT] [2012] [20
Taxmann.com 236] [Karnataka – HC]
Case Law on Revisionary Order U/S 263:
CIT cannot direct AO to
determine whether the order passed was erroneous or not:
Where the CIT had
doubts about valuation and sale consideration received but he had not examined
the said aspects himself but directed the AO to conduct further enquiry to
verify and find out whether order passed was erroneous, held that such
direction is not valid. Thus, U/S 263, the CIT himself has to determine whether
an order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but he
cannot direct the AO to determine the same. [ITO Vs D.G.Housing Projects Ltd] [2012] [20 Taxmann.com 587] [Delhi –
HC]
Case Law on
Jurisdiction U/S 263:
In
order to invoke provisions of Sec 263, what is to be seen is legal position
prevailing as on point of time when revisionary order is passed and it is
wholly immaterial as to what was legal position as at point of time when
assessment was framed, particularly when there is significant difference in
legal position between point of time when assessment is framed and when it is
revised. [Star India Ltd Vs ADIT] [2011]
[16 Taxmann.com 277] [Mum-Trib]
Adv
Tax, Recovery, Int & refunds
Case Law on Recovery
proceedings:
Income Tax Dues Vs
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets: Priority – Reg:
It
may be noted that there is no provision in statute which gives preferential
rights to dues of State under the IT Act. Therefore, where a banker initiated
proceedings U/S 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Income Tax
Department cannot claim preferential rights over the bankers dues under the
said Act. [Axis Bank Ltd Vs CIT] [2012]
[17 Taxmann.com 139] [Punj & Har] [HC]
Case Law on Sec 245:
Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable:
The
Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals), Chief
Commissioner or Commissioner may set off the amount to be refunded against the
sum remaining payable by the assessee to whom refund is due.
Intimation in writing
shall be sent to assessee stating the action proposed to be taken under
section.
On the other hand,
where refund of one year is adjusted with tax dues of other assessment year
without giving an opportunity to the assessee and intimating him of the action
proposed by the AO, such adjustment is bad in law. [Genpact India Vs ACIT] [2012] [17 Taxmann.com 145] [Delhi HC] [Maruth
Suzuki India Ltd Vs DCIT] [2012] [204 Taxman 48] [Delhi-HC]
Goodwill arising on
amalgamation is eligible for depreciation. [CIT
Vs Smifs Securities Ltd] [2012] [24 Taxmann.com 222] [SC]
Penalties
Failure to get accounts
audited, no penalty in re-assessment proceedings if not imposed while
processing of return.
In “Jasbir Singh Vs CIT” [2012] [20 Taxmann.com202] [Punjab & Haryana],
the HC held that where original return was processed U/S 143(1)(a) and the AO
had not initiated any penalty proceedings U/S 271B for failure on the part of
the assessee to file audit report along with that return, penalty U/S 271B
could not be levied while finalizing assessment in response to notice U/S 148,
particularly when assessee had filed audit report during re-assessment
proceedings.
TP
Provisions
Case Law on Transfer
pricing – Determination of ALP
Transaction with AE
(Associated Enterprise) can be never be a comparable even if found to be at
ALP: [Tecnimont ICB (P) Ltd Vs Addl CIT]
[2012] [24 Taxmann.com 28][Mum-Trib]
End of Important
Case Laws – Part # 2
|
If comparables are
selected to make positive adjustments only, such selection is unjustified.
Thus, the AO should take into consideration both types of differences, i.e
positive and negative on sale to AE and purchases from AE. [Mainetti India P
Ltd Vs ACIT] [2012] [22 Taxmann.com 236] [Chennai-Trib]