Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
From the Courts »
 Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 Shreemati Devi vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court)
 Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs

CIT vs. SAP Labs Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court)
September, 17th 2014

S. 263: TPO’s acceptance of ALP shows two views are possible & CIT has no jurisdiction to revise assessment

The assessee filed a ROI for AY 2002-03 which was accepted u/s 143(1). The AO issued a notice u/s 148 dated 01.04.2004 to reopen the assessment. Before the assessee filed a ROI in response to the notice, the TPO issued a notice dated 12.04.2004 u/s 92CA seeking details about the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its group companies. The assessee thereafter filed a ROI on 21.04.2004. The TPO passed an order u/s 92CA in which he did not make any adjustments. The CIT passed an order u/s 263 setting aside the assessment order on the ground that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal quashed the CIT’s order on the ground that (i) two views are possible when the TPO has accepted the arms’ length valuation and the CIT had no jurisdiction to interfere with the said order u/s 263 & (ii) on the day the reference was made by the AO to the TPO, there was no return pending for consideration. On appeal by the department to the High Court HELD dismissing the appeal:

On the day the reference was made by the AO to the TPO, there was no return pending for consideration by him and therefore, the very reference was bad. Even otherwise, the said Transfer Pricing Authority did not find fault with the adjudication of determining arms length price by the Assessing Authority. In those circumstances, the CIT committed an error in exercising his power u/s 263 and the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the said order.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Achievements

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions