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

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sh. Paramjit Singh, Mohali

ITA 50/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…er. 4.5 Penalty u/s 271(l) (c) is leviable with regard to "the tax sought to be evaded". In the appellant case, the retuned income and the assessed income are same. There was no tax sought to be evaded. 4.6 It has been held in the case of B.C. Srinivas Shetty 128 ITR 294 (SC) that when the computation provisions fail, the charging provisions cannot he applied.By the same logic, when the computation provisions u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sh. Paramjit Singh, Mohali

ITA 48/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…er. 4.5 Penalty u/s 271(l) (c) is leviable with regard to "the tax sought to be evaded". In the appellant case, the retuned income and the assessed income are same. There was no tax sought to be evaded. 4.6 It has been held in the case of B.C. Srinivas Shetty 128 ITR 294 (SC) that when the computation provisions fail, the charging provisions cannot he applied.By the same logic, when the computation provisions u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur, Chandigarh

ITA 45/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…er. 4.5 Penalty u/s 271(l) (c) is leviable with regard to "the tax sought to be evaded". In the appellant case, the retuned income and the assessed income are same. There was no tax sought to be evaded. 4.6 It has been held in the case of B.C. Srinivas Shetty 128 ITR 294 (SC) that when the computation provisions fail, the charging provisions cannot he applied.By the same logic, when the computation provisions u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sh. Kulwant Singh, Mohali

ITA 44/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…er. 4.5 Penalty u/s 271(l) (c) is leviable with regard to "the tax sought to be evaded". In the appellant case, the retuned income and the assessed income are same. There was no tax sought to be evaded. 4.6 It has been held in the case of B.C. Srinivas Shetty 128 ITR 294 (SC) that when the computation provisions fail, the charging provisions cannot he applied.By the same logic, when the computation provisions u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sh. Kulwant Singh, Mohali

ITA 387/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…er. 4.5 Penalty u/s 271(l) (c) is leviable with regard to "the tax sought to be evaded". In the appellant case, the retuned income and the assessed income are same. There was no tax sought to be evaded. 4.6 It has been held in the case of B.C. Srinivas Shetty 128 ITR 294 (SC) that when the computation provisions fail, the charging provisions cannot he applied.By the same logic, when the computation provisions u/s 271(l)(c) fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot be levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 4.7 Para 8 of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble…

M/S. Jammu Development Authority, Jammu ( J&K) vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 498/ASR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

For Appellant: Shri. R. K. Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

…d nazul land was Nil and the cost to its predecessor which is State Government is not ascertainable. Therefore, the computation provision fails in the instant case. 38. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) has held that charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provision cannot apply at all, its evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. 39. In view of the above, the capital receipt in the form of premium received by…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. M/S. Jammu Develpment Authority, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 494/ASR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

For Appellant: Shri. R. K. Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

…d nazul land was Nil and the cost to its predecessor which is State Government is not ascertainable. Therefore, the computation provision fails in the instant case. 38. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) has held that charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provision cannot apply at all, its evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. 39. In view of the above, the capital receipt in the form of premium received by…

India Today Online Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 12(2), New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…nce of machinery provisions, the computation fails and consequently, the substantive provision would also fail. In support, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. B. C. Srinivasa Setty, reported in 128 ITR 294. 16. Ld. Counsel further submitted that addition so enhanced by a sum of Rs. 48,16, 66,660/- in AY 2013-14 was not the "subject matter of assessment" before learned AO, which is evident from the order of assessment so passed by learned AO and also as per the findings so recorded by learned CIT (A) at pages 64 and 65 of his order. No query was eve…

India Today Online Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 12(2), New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6453/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…nce of machinery provisions, the computation fails and consequently, the substantive provision would also fail. In support, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. B. C. Srinivasa Setty, reported in 128 ITR 294. 16. Ld. Counsel further submitted that addition so enhanced by a sum of Rs. 48,16, 66,660/- in AY 2013-14 was not the "subject matter of assessment" before learned AO, which is evident from the order of assessment so passed by learned AO and also as per the findings so recorded by learned CIT (A) at pages 64 and 65 of his order. No query was eve…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…87. While as per Appellant, cost of acquisition of rights transferred during captioned year was advances paid to RBPPL however, as per Ld. AO, cost of acquisition is indeterminate. Applying Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment of CIT vs.B.C. Srinivasa Setty[1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC) capital gains cannot be taxed in case cost of acquisition is indeterminate. 88. Without prejudice to above, regarding Ld. AO‟s allegation that indexation benefits would be allowable from AY 1997-98, Appellant submits that at best Ld. AO could argue that rights mentioned above which Appellant received in 1989 were transformed into undivided i…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…87. While as per Appellant, cost of acquisition of rights transferred during captioned year was advances paid to RBPPL however, as per Ld. AO, cost of acquisition is indeterminate. Applying Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment of CIT vs.B.C. Srinivasa Setty[1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC) capital gains cannot be taxed in case cost of acquisition is indeterminate. 88. Without prejudice to above, regarding Ld. AO‟s allegation that indexation benefits would be allowable from AY 1997-98, Appellant submits that at best Ld. AO could argue that rights mentioned above which Appellant received in 1989 were transformed into undivided i…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…87. While as per Appellant, cost of acquisition of rights transferred during captioned year was advances paid to RBPPL however, as per Ld. AO, cost of acquisition is indeterminate. Applying Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment of CIT vs.B.C. Srinivasa Setty[1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC) capital gains cannot be taxed in case cost of acquisition is indeterminate. 88. Without prejudice to above, regarding Ld. AO‟s allegation that indexation benefits would be allowable from AY 1997-98, Appellant submits that at best Ld. AO could argue that rights mentioned above which Appellant received in 1989 were transformed into undivided i…

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

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 7691/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 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, 31 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus Ind…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 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, 31 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus Ind…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1662/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 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, 31 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus Ind…

ITO, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri K V V Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 457/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave CBM Compound Visakhapatnam [PAN : AGRPC1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment…

ITO, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam vs. Siripurapu Chinatalli, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 375/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave CBM Compound Visakhapatnam [PAN : AGRPC1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment…

ITO 31(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Llaln & Co, Mumbai

ITA 356/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodthe Income Tax Officer- M/S Lalan & Co. 31(2)(2) C/O. Jogeshwari Petrol Supply Co. 102, C-13 Pratyakshaar S.V. Road, Jogeshwari West, Bhavan Mumbai-400102 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan – Aaafl2403N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tanmay Phadke, A.R
Section 143(3)

…case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in cancelling the order of the AO without considering the fact that the AO had reason to believe as per directions of the Hon’ble ITAT which was recorded for reopening & there was no change of opinion, and the decision in 128 ITR 294 (SC) relied upon was distinguished in 176 ITR 417 (SC). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the figure for sale of TDR stating no justifiable reason when the findings on the basis of comparable figures for sale of TDR was done by the AO.” The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(…

Loreal India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 22 to 27 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1417/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Acit-7(1)(2) A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 130, Ground Floor, Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaacl0738K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwala Sr. Advocate With Shri Hiten Chande Advocate Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254(1)Section 92B

…ary 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 alre…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7933/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Yojit PareekFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92F

…scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 75 in the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined international transaction to tax is fraught with the 50 ITA.No.7933/Del./2018 & SA.No.965/Del./2018 Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram. danger of invalidation. In the present case, in the absence of there being an international tr…