CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

128 ITR 294Supreme Court of India1981#92 most cited

What is CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty authority for?

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

628

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty · 128 ITR 294 · Section 45 · Section 48 · Section 55(2) · cost of acquisition · capital gains computation · machinery provision · unascertainable cost · intangible assets · taxability of goodwill · no tax without machinery

Also reported as

5 Taxmann 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 92BSection 234BSection 45Section 55(2)Section 143(2)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 211section 55section 32(1)(ii)section 21section 92bsection 32(1)intangible assetssection 48section 45book profitsfair market valuesection 115j

Judgments citing CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

…ith fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

…ith fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 419/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

…ith fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 418/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

…ith fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 417/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

…ith fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 416/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

…ith fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 415/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

…ith fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Sarojini M Kushe

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/475/2016HC Karnataka01 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 48Section 50CSection 50D

…e assessment year under consideration, there is no provision in the Act which contemplates as to how full value of consideration has to be determined when an assessee entered into a JDA. Placing reliance on CIT v. B.C.Srinivasa Setty, reported in (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) submitted that there can be no capital gains arising on entering into JDA during the assessment year under consideration, as the Act does not contemplates the method of computation of capital gains. Alternatively, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the guidance value of the extent of land which is transferred to the developer, pre…

Anukool Furniture Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, CPC -TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 539/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2015-16 Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd Acit, B-12, Doctor House, Nr. Parimal Vs Cpc-Tds, Railway Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ghaziabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aabca 6053 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "त् यथ" "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25Th January 2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.74,000/- Which Was Imposed Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. With The Assistance Of The Learned Representatives, We Have Gone Through The Record Carefully. It Emerges Out From The Record That The Assessee Failed To Submit Its Tds Return Well In Time During The Accounting Period Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Therefore, A Penalty Under Section 234E Of The Act Amounting To Rs.74,000/- Was Imposed Upon The Assessee. Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit Ay : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (through web-based video conferencing platform) ] ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years : 2015-16 Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd ACIT, B-12, Doctor House, Nr. Parimal Vs CPC-TDS, Railway Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ghaziabad Ahmedabad-380006 PAN : AABCA 6053 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "त् यथ" "त् यथ"/ (Respondent…

Asst. CIT Circle- 16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Utv Software Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 948/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle -16(1) Vs. M/S. Utv Software Room No. 439, 4Th Communications Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Bldg-14, Mk Road, Mumbai – Solitaire Corporate 400020. Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace4122G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44ASection 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, Circle -16(1) Vs. M/s. UTV Software Room No. 439, 4th Communications Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor, Bldg-14, MK Road, Mumbai – Solitaire Corporate 400020. Park, Guru hargovind Marg, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 PAN/GIR No. : AAACE4122G Appellant .. Respondent CO. No.127/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2011-12) (in ITA No. 948/Mum/2020) M/s. UTV Software Vs. ACIT, Circle -16(1) Communications Ltd., Room No. 439, 4th 1st Floor, Bldg-14, Floor, Aayakar Solitaire C…

Jasper Auto Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 705/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 0196P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 50BSection 5O

…rds sale/transfer of goodwill is taxable as per the provisions of the Act or not. In this regard, it is worthwhile to examine the legislative history on taxability of goodwill. 7.7.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981J 128 ITR 294 has held that goodwill generated in a business cannot be described as an "asset" within the meaning of section 45 of the Act and, therefore, the transfer of goodwill initially generated in a business doesn't give rise to a capital gain for the purposes of Income Tax. While doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the cost of acquisit…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 303/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…sary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance." 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position explicit. Therefore, where the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expense with an ascertainable price is unable to be shown to exist, even if such price is nil, Chapter X provisions cannot be invoked to undertake a TP adjustment exercise. 65. As alread…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Abb Ltd

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/568/2015HC Karnataka04 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 2(24)Section 220Section 220(2)Section 254Section 260Section 260ASection 45

…authorities. The authorities proceeded to hold that the transaction as a sale of goodwill, contrary to their earlier stance taken i.e., technical know-how. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT V/s. B.C.Srinivasa Setty [(1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC)] which dealt with the question whether the capital gain accrue or arise when “Goodwill” of a business is transferred and thereby held that the goodwill is something built up by the carrying on of a business or profession and cannot be by just paying money and such a case does not fall within the charging Section. Technical know-…

Shri Basavaraj Gurunanjaiah Hiremath, Gulbarga vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K. Mallaha Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(47)Section 45(1)Section 47Section 50C

…ovision Page 5 of 15 is accompanied by a set of provisions for computing the income subject to that charge. Referring to the fundamental integrality of the statutory scheme provided for capital gains, the Supreme Court observed in B.C. Srinivasa Betty's case 128 ITR 294 (SC) at p. 299 of the report; "Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset to income-tax. The asset must be one which falls within the contemplation of the section. It must bear that quality which brings s. 45 into play. To determine whether the goodwill of a new business is such an asset, it is permissibl…

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

…for use or sale and the intention is to complete the intangible asset for use or sale is shown or how the intangible asset generate probable future benefits, etc. The aforesaid position finds recognition and was accepted in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC); [1981] 2 SCC 460, a relating transfer to goodwill. Goodwill, it was held, was a capital asset and denotes benefits arising from connection and reputation. A variety of elements go into its making and the composition varies in different trades, different businesses in the same trade, as one element may pre-dominate one business, another elem…

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Utv Software Communicatin Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6292/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vatsalya Saxena
Section 115JSection 14A

…he machinery Section of the Act cannot be read de-hors charging Section. The Act has to be read as an integrated whole. On the aforesaid submission also, there can be no dispute. However, as observed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Shetti [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 taxmann. com 1, "there is a qualitative difference between the charging provisions and computation provisions and ordinarily the operation of the charging provisions cannot be affected by the construction of computation provisions." In the present case, there is no charging provision to tax capital account transaction in respect of issue of sha…

M/S. Premier Book Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5149/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bharat B. Garg, Sr. DR
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2010-11] M/s Premier Book Company Vs. The Addl. C.I.T 11, No. 4792/23, Ansari Road Circle – 30(1) Darya Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAEFP 8468 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 10.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.08.2021 Assessee by : Shri B.K. Anand, CA Revenue by : Shri Bharat B. Garg, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of…

Dcb Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7257/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

…king company, would convince us that machinery provision provided in sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act, would be rendered wholly unworkable in such a situation. In a well known judgment the Supreme court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 had observed that in the Income Tax Act, a charing section and the computing provisions together constitute an integrated code. In a case where the computation provision can not apply, it would be evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. It was a case of charging a partnership firm for transfer of…

Blue River Realty Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are dismissed

ITA 36/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.V. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234ESection 3

…e tax with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed within one year from the due date. 21. counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contended that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C. Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capita! gain on transfer of capital asset In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 8700/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

…cessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance.' In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC) ; [2002-TIOL-587-SC-IT-LB] and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position explicit. Therefore, where the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expense with an ascertainable price is unable to be shown to exist, even if such price is nil, Chapter X provisions cannot be invoked to undertake a transfer p…