|
|
|
| « From the Courts » |
|---|
 Court On Its Own Motion vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) | | Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi Room No. 357, ARA Centre, E-2 vs. M/s Moets Bar-B-Cue,50, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi 110 024 PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFM7936M | | ADIT, Cir. 1(1), (Intl. Taxation), 204, Drum Shape Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110 002 vs. Ms. Meena Chopra, P-13, Ground Floor,Malviya Nagar, New Delhi | | CIT vs. Awadh Hotels (P) Ltd (Allahabad High Court) | | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | | Mehsana Circle Vs Mehsana M/s.Shree Riddhi Corporation 32, Amikunj Society Near Technical School, Kalol | | ITO, Ward 40(3), Room No. 307, Mayur Bhavan, vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Walia, Through L/H Mrs. Prem Walia, G-251, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, | | M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.5th Floor, Diamond Square, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E),Mumbai – 400 098. | | Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Room No. 413, CR Building, New Delhi vs. Maharani Paints India Pvt. Ltd., TA-3/146-C, Tuglakabad Extn.,New Delhi | | Income Tax Officer, Ward 38(2), Room No. 234A, 2nd floor, CR Bldg., IP Estate, New Delhi vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Through Legal Heir Sh. Naveen Kumar, 9307, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj Delhi – 110 006 |
|
|
|
|
|
| « Vaseline is a drug, not cosmetic, rules SC... | Part of the direct cost is attributable to the value of DEPB... » |
Landmark tribunal ruling hits tax authority |
|
|
| May, 23rd 2008 |
| In a major ruling which will have widespread implications for transfer pricing inquiries in India, a tribunal has set limits on the scope of transfer pricing officers (TPOs) to demand company documentation. The Indian subsidiary of Cargill has won an appeal against a $10.1 million penalty issued by the tax authorities after they said the company had failed to provide adequate documentation. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also threw out the TPOs demands for more detailed documentation. It restricted which classifications of documents can be requested in particular circumstances. Advisers in India say the ruling is a victory for common sense and a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
