Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Randox Laboratories (India) Private ... vs Dcit, Bangalore on 17 July, 2019
29 It is submitted that for the year under consideration also the facts are
identical and accordingly, respectfully following the above decision of the
coordinate bench we remit the issue back to the AO to examine the nature of
expenditure incurred by the assessee and to verify the issue afresh in the light of
the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apex
Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Ground Nos. 4 to 7 are allowed for statistical
purposes."
M/S Johnson Mathey Chemicals India Pvt. ... vs Cit Ii, Thane on 24 July, 2018
5.4 Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. AO/DRP have erred
in disallowing the entire cost of samples of INR 1,92,49,140 without
appreciating the fact that the Appellant has actually manufactured/
imported samples after paying necessary duties to the Government of
India and hence the disallowance may have been restricted to 2% of
the cost of samples as held by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Mumbai in the decision of Johnson and Johnson Ltd v
CIT(I.T.A No 83/ Mum/ 2011).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Handicrafts And Handlooms Export ... on 6 September, 2013
We also find such a
view in a recent pronouncement in Commissioner of Income Tax
versus Handicrafts and Handlooms Export Corporation of India
Ltd. (Delhi High Court) with which we are in respectful agreement.
Li And Fung India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 December, 2013
51 In our view whether the mark- up of the cost of the services rendered by
the Third Party can be applied for determining the ALP in the hands of the
assessee should be examined from the angle of whether by making the payment
on behalf of AE the assessee is performing any function or deploying any assets
IT(TP)A No.3250/Bang/2018
M/s. Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore
Page 25 of 29
or has born any risks. It is also important to examine whether the services are
rendered by the third party to the AEs and the assessee's role is limited the extent
of only routing the payments and that there is no service rendered by the assessee
to the AE warranting an ALP adjustment. The DRP has not examined these facts
based on the details furnished and has calculated an adhoc margin of 5%
without any bench marking analysis and without attributing any reasons as to
why the reimbursement is a separate international transaction. We also notice
that the DRP has not considered the assessee's submission that the entire
expenses incurred on behalf of AE does not pertain to coordination of clinical
trial segment since the AEs who have reimbursed the expenses are not those to
whom clinical trial services are rendered by the assessee. In view of these
discussions we are of the considered view that the issue should be remitted back
to the DRP to examine the various details and submissions furnished by the
assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. The DRP is directed to
keep in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Li and
Fung India Pvt Ltd (supra) while deciding the issue. Accordingly this ground is
allowed in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax.Andhra ... on 19 September, 1997
The aforesaid view tends to overlook
the fact that in both Ponni Sugars (supra) and Sahney Steel (supra)
the subsidies received were in the nature of grant-in-aid from public
funds and not by way of voluntary contribution by the parent
company as in the present cases. The above part, the voluntary
payments made by the parent company to its loss making Indian
company can also be understood to be payments made in order to
protect the capital investment of the Assessee Company. If that is
so, we will have no hesitation to hold that the payments made to the
Assessee company by the parent company for Assessment years in
question cannot be held to be revenue receipts.
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Madras vs M/S. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd on 16 September, 2008
The aforesaid view tends to overlook
the fact that in both Ponni Sugars (supra) and Sahney Steel (supra)
the subsidies received were in the nature of grant-in-aid from public
funds and not by way of voluntary contribution by the parent
company as in the present cases. The above part, the voluntary
payments made by the parent company to its loss making Indian
company can also be understood to be payments made in order to
protect the capital investment of the Assessee Company. If that is
so, we will have no hesitation to hold that the payments made to the
Assessee company by the parent company for Assessment years in
question cannot be held to be revenue receipts.
1