Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.57 seconds)Section 92C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 92CA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cit vs Ekl Appliances Ltd on 29 March, 2012
referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
the case of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. ITA.1608 & 1070/2011
dated 29th March, 2012.
Polestar Electronic(P) Ltd vs Addl. Commissioner, Sales Tax Delhi on 20 February, 1978
14.5. Without prejudice to the above contention, it
was also submitted that Transfer Pricing Officer in fact has
concluded arms length nature of international transactions
adopting TNMM as a method wherein the margin of assessee,
considering the management fee as an expense, was arrived at
9.89 % on sales, which is higher than the arms length margin
on comparable companies determined by the TPO at 5.60%
and accordingly, no adjustment is warranted once arms length
nature of transactions entered by the unit are considered as
such under TNMM. Then he referred to the provisions of 92CA
to explain scope of the provisions and determination of ALP by
applying various methods prescribed under section 92C read
with Rule 10B to submit that once a method was invoked by
the TPO, other methods does not apply and this principle is
no longer res integra. For this proposition, the learned Counsel
relied on various decisions of the ITAT and High Court
particularly, in the decision of Hero MotoCorp. Ltd. vs. Addl.
Cit vs Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd. on 29 August, 2012
CIT (Delhi) (Trib) in ITA.No.5130/Del/2010 dated 23.11.2012,
CIT vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd. ITA.No. 1450/2010, 1451/2010,
1652/2010 and 825/2011 of Delhi High Court and various
other decisions as placed in the paper book of case law.
Section 80HHC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd on 12 January, 1982
14.3. Learned Counsel referred to the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Safe
Deposit Co. Ltd., 133 ITR 756 for the proposition that true test
of expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the business
or trade is that it is incurred by assessee as incidental to that
trade for the purpose of getting trade and make it pay and not
in any other capacity eg. as a house holder. Learned Counsel
also placed reliance on the following judgments in support of
his contention that purpose of business is wider in scope than
the expression for the purpose of earning profits.