Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Air Canada [Alongwith Ita Nos. 1341 To ... on 28 March, 2003

14. It has been held by various courts that it is not for the revenue authorities to dictate to the assessee as to how he should conduct his business and it is not for them to tell the assessee as to what expenditure the assessee can incur. The question whether decision was commercially sound or not is not relevant. The Hon'ble High Court in the judgment cited as EKL Appliances [Supra] has held that the assessee was not required to show that any expenditure incurred by him for the purpose of business carried on by him has actually resulted in profit or income either in the same year or in the subsequent years.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 98 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S. Cushman And Wakefield (India) Pvt. ... on 23 May, 2014

Rand India Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income\Tax, 2012 (13) ITR (Trib) 422 and Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 475/2012), it has been clearly established that it is beyond the powers of the Transfer Pricing Officer to question the commercial wisdom of the Assessee. The TPO's authority is restricted to determining the ALP for international transactions referred to him by the AO. The TPO, after a consideration of the facts, can state that the ALP is 'nil' given that an independent entity in a comparable transaction would not pay any amount. Further, the Delhi High Court in case of Bausch and Lomb Eye care Private Limited has held that re-characterization of transaction and questioning commercial expediency is not permissible on the basis of 6 ITA.Nos.7887 & 7888/Del./2017 M/s. AT Kearney Limited, Gurgaon.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 113 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Fried Krupp Industries on 2 May, 1980

are concerned, both these companies are Government of India Undertakings. While Antrix Corporation Ltd., is under the administrative control of the Department of Space and is the commercial arm of Indian Space Research Organisation and involved in building satellites, WAPCOS 26 ITA.Nos.7887 & 7888/Del./2017 M/s. AT Kearney Limited, Gurgaon. Ltd. is a Mini Ratna Public Sector Enterprise under the aegis of Union Ministry of Water Resources and provides services in all facets of water resources, power and infrastructure sectors in India and abroad. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries India (P) Ltd., has held that Public Sector Undertakings are not driven by profit motive alone, but, such other considerations also weigh such as discharge of social obligations, etc., and hence, they cannot be considered as comparable with the private companies. Respectfully following the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and observing that WAPCO Ltd and Antrix Corporation Ltd. are Government of India Undertakings, we hold that these two companies cannot be held as comparable with the assessee company and are to be rejected. So far as Edserv Softsystems Ltd.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

Dcit, Bangalore vs M/S Coriant Communication India Pvt. ... on 1 June, 2017

1.8. In context of the present case, what the above guidance highlights is that in applying the cost plus method, it is important to ensure that the arm's length profit mark up is charged on the value adding costs incurred by the sendee provider in rendering the sendees and not on the out of pocket / pass through costs that by themselves do not add any value and do not contain any element of provision of a service but are merely incurred by the service provider for administrative expediency and convenience." 10.1. He submitted that the stand of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs., Cheil Communications India Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.712/Del./2010 and various other decisions as mentioned in the paper book. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has given well reasoned finding in his Order to address this issue. Therefore, the same being in consonance with Law, should be upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue should be dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Johnson Matthey Chemicals India ... vs Additional Commissioner Of ... on 6 November, 2017

Rand India Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income\Tax, 2012 (13) ITR (Trib) 422 and Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 475/2012), it has been clearly established that it is beyond the powers of the Transfer Pricing Officer to question the commercial wisdom of the Assessee. The TPO's authority is restricted to determining the ALP for international transactions referred to him by the AO. The TPO, after a consideration of the facts, can state that the ALP is 'nil' given that an independent entity in a comparable transaction would not pay any amount. Further, the Delhi High Court in case of Bausch and Lomb Eye care Private Limited has held that re-characterization of transaction and questioning commercial expediency is not permissible on the basis of 6 ITA.Nos.7887 & 7888/Del./2017 M/s. AT Kearney Limited, Gurgaon.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1