CIT vs. Suman Dhamija (Supreme Court)
CBDT Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 specifying monetary limits for filing appeals by the department applies only to appeals filed after that date and not to pending appealsThe appeals and review petitions preferred by the department before the High Court, were disposed of on the basis of the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 9.2.2011. It is not a matter of dispute, that all the appeals were preferred prior to 2011, whereas, the instructions dated 9.2.2011 clearly indicate in paragraph 11 thereof, that they shall not govern cases which have been filed before 2011, and that, the same will govern only such cases which are filed after the issuance of the aforesaid instructions dated 9.2.2011. In view of the above, the instant appeals are allowed, the impugned orders passed by the High Court hereby set aside
Pr. CIT vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)
S. 147: Failure by AO to comply with the law in G. K. N. Driveshafts & pass order on objections renders assessment order void; Even a s. 143(1) assessment cannot be reopened in the absence of new/ tangible materialThe department’s contention that the judgement in CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del) is contrary to the Full Bench verdict in CIT-VI v. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 485 and the issue should be referred to a larger Bench is not acceptable because the central issue examined in the decision of the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. was as to what constituted a “change of opinion”. The Court, therefore, does not consider the decision in Orient Craft Ltd. as being contrary to the decision in Usha International Ltd. In other words, there is no occasion for the Court to refer to a larger bench the question of the correctness of the decision in Orient Craft Ltd. which decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case
CIT vs. Executive Engineer, GESCOM (Karnataka High Court)
S. 194C/ 194J TDS: Even if the supply contract is an integral part of a composite contract on single sale responsible basis, there is no obligation to deduct TDS. Service contracts, not being professional services, are not covered by s. 194JThe whole object of introduction of that Section is to deduct tax in respect of payments made for works contract. No division is, therefore, permissible in respect of a contract for supply of materials for carrying out the work. It is in a case of distinct contracts. The contract for supply of material being a separate and distinct contract, no division is permissible under Section 194C of the Act
Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
Transfer Pricing: Important law laid down on the principles for identifying comparables for benchmarking an international transaction & determining the ALP in the context of whether KPO services are comparable to BPO services. Law also laid down on whether for TNMM method, broad functionality is sufficient and whether supernormal profits indicate that there is functional dissimilarityWe have reservations as to the Tribunal’s aforesaid view in Maersk Global Centers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As indicated above, the expression ‘BPO’ and ‘KPO’ are, plainly, understood in the sense that whereas, BPO does not necessarily involve advanced skills and knowledge; KPO, on the other hand, would involve employment of advanced skills and knowledge for providing services. Thus, the expression ‘KPO’ in common parlance is used to indicate an ITeS provider providing a completely different nature of service than any other BPO service provider. A KPO service provider would also be functionally different from other BPO service providers, inasmuch as the responsibilities undertaken, the activities performed, the quality of resources employed would be materially different. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree that broadly ITeS sector can be used for selecting comparables without making a conscious selection as to the quality and nature of the content of services
No comments:
Post a Comment