Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.56 seconds)Section 92B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80IC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 92C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (Earlier Known ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi on 26 February, 2019
63. Further, in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) the Court further explained
the absence of a 'machinery provision qua AMP expenses by the following
analogy: "75. As an analogy, and for no other purpose, in the context of a
domestic transaction involving two or more related parties, reference may be
made to Section 40 A (2) (a) under which certain types of expenditure
incurred by way of payment to related parties is not deductible where the AO
"is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having
regard to the fair market value of the goods." In such event, "so much of the
expenditure as is so considered by him to be excessive or unreasonable shall
not be allowed as a deduction." The AO in such an instance deploys the 'best
judgment' assessment as a device to disallow what he considers to be an
excessive expenditure. There is no corresponding 'machinery' provision in
Chapter X which enables an AO to determine what should be the fair
'compensation' an Indian entity would be entitled to if it is found that there is
an international transaction in that regard. In practical terms, absent a clear
35
ITA No. 8428/Mum/2010(AY-2006-07)
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd
statutory guidance, this may encounter further difficulties. The strength of a
brand, which could be product specific, may be impacted by numerous other
imponderables not limited to the nature of the industry, the geographical
peculiarities, economic trends both international and domestic, the
consumption patterns, market behaviour and so on. A simplistic approach
using one of the modes similar to the ones contemplated by Section 92C may
not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness. What is
then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative policy
and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while
at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance."
Cit vs Eds Elec. Data System (India) P. Ltd on 11 April, 2014
In support of his submissions the ld. AR for the
assessee relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Tata
Power Solar System Ltd 289 CTR 197 (Bombay). It was further argued that
Alphageo is not comparable as the same renders seismic services and does
not provide any pharmaceutical R&D services.
Section 92 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu) vs M/S. Whirlpool Of India Ltd. on 30 September, 2016
In Whirlpool of India Ltd. (supra), the Court interpreted the expression
"acted in concert" and in that context referred to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. v. Jayaram Chigurupati 2010(6)
MANU/SC/0454/2010, which arose in the context of acquisition of shares of
Zenotech Laboratory Ltd. by the Ranbaxy Group. The question that was
examined was whether at the relevant time the Appellant, i.e., Daiichi
Sankyo Company and Ranbaxy were "acting in concert" within the meaning
of Regulation 20(4) (b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997. In
para 44, it was observed as under:
Hitachi Data Systems India P.Ltd, ... vs Asst Cit 14(2)(1), Mumbai on 4 May, 2018
We have noted that Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in CIT vs. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. (supra) held that when for
purpose of determining ALP, companies assessee, engaged in generation of
solar energy, had mistakenly included two companies engaged in area of
wind energy in its list of comparables, assessee would not barred in law
from withdrawing these two comparables from its list on ground of
functional difference.
M/S Daiichi Sankyo Company vs Jayaram Chigurupati & Ors on 8 July, 2010
In Whirlpool of India Ltd. (supra), the Court interpreted the expression
"acted in concert" and in that context referred to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. v. Jayaram Chigurupati 2010(6)
MANU/SC/0454/2010, which arose in the context of acquisition of shares of
Zenotech Laboratory Ltd. by the Ranbaxy Group. The question that was
examined was whether at the relevant time the Appellant, i.e., Daiichi
Sankyo Company and Ranbaxy were "acting in concert" within the meaning
of Regulation 20(4) (b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997. In
para 44, it was observed as under: