Vol. 11 Issue 11.1 November 9, 2015
About BMR Advisors | BMR Newsletters | BMR Insights | Events | Contact Us | Feedback
Direct Tax Special edition
Key judgements rendered by the Supreme Court
1. Deduction in respect of discounted value of interest on debentures
paid at the time of issuance of the debentures
The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd.1, reversing the
Bombay High Court‟s judgement, held that the discounted value of interest on
debentures paid at the time of issuance of the debentures is fully deductible
under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) in the year of
payment itself, irrespective of it having been amortized over the tenure of the
debentures in the books of accounts. The SC held that under IT Act, revenue
expenditure is deductible in the year in which it is incurred in case of taxpayer
following mercantile basis of accounting, and the treatment of such
expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure in the books of accounts will not
override this position, as also held by it in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg.
Co. Ltd.2 The SC clarified that there is no concept of deferred revenue
expenditure under the IT Act, and in the case of Madras Industrial Investment
Corpn Ltd.3, the taxpayer was allowed to claim the discount on issue of
debentures over the tenure of the debentures since the taxpayer preferred
such a treatment.
2. Depreciation in respect of assets temporarily leased out pending
commencement of business
The SC in the case of K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd.4 , reversing the Allahabad High
Court‟s judgement, allowed depreciation on assets (i.e. cylinders), originally
purchased for the taxpayer‟s manufacturing business but temporarily leased
out to third persons pending commencement of the manufacturing business.
The SC held that the purpose of the taxpayer originally purchasing the assets
was irrelevant, and once the income from leasing of the assets is treated as
Share
Connect
Taxand Global Survey 2015
India‟s Economic Performance and
Business imperatives: Repositioning
India - Narendra Modi‟s Foreign Policy
Forbes Survey on one year of Narendra
Modi‟s business agenda
A Norweigan guide to doing business in
India
Managing Tax Disputes in India
Getting the Deal Through – Tax on
Inbound Investment 2015
2016:
Tier 1 firm in International Tax Review,
World Tax 2016 Guide to World‟s
Leading Tax Firms for the ninth
consecutive year
“business income”, the depreciation on the assets cannot be denied on the
basis that the assets were originally purchased for the manufacturing
business and not for leasing.
3. Taxation of income from renting of property
The SC in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd.5 , reversing the
Madras High Court‟s judgement, held that if the business of the taxpayer is to
acquire and let out properties, then the rental income earned from such
properties should be assessable as “business income” and not as “income
from house property”.
4. No choice to the taxpayer of not claiming unabsorbed brought forward
depreciation if depreciation of the current year is claimed
The SC in the case of Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.6 , affirming the
Madras High Court‟s judgement, held that in the matter of priority of set off of
depreciation and investment allowance in computing the “business income” of
the current year, it is not open to the taxpayer to claim the set off of the
depreciation of the current year alone under section 32(1) of the IT Act and,
carry forward the unabsorbed brought forward depreciation of earlier years.
The position would have been different if the taxpayer had not claimed any
depreciation in the current year at all. However, if the depreciation is claimed
in the current year, then the entire depreciation, including the unabsorbed
brought forward depreciation [which partakes the character of depreciation of
the current year by virtue of the fiction created by section 32(2) of the IT Act]
is to be taken into account.
5. Deduction in respect of housing projects under section 80-IB(10) of the
IT Act
The SC in the case of Sarkar Builders.7 , affirming decision of various High
Courts , held that the provisions of section 80-IB(10) of the IT Act, substituted
by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from April 1, 2005 (especially
clause (d) of the Explanation thereto restricting the commercial area in the
housing project), applied only prospectively to housing projects approved by
the local authorities on or after April 1, 2005 , and could not be applied to
housing projects approved by the local authorities before April 1, 2005. The
SC held that the said clause (d), being in the nature of a restriction on the
maximum commercial area in a housing project, is inextricably linked to the
approval of the housing project, and where a housing project with commercial
area higher than the maximum limit specified in the said clause (d) is
approved prior to the introduction of the said clause(d) [i.e. under the
Tier 2 firm in International Tax Review,
World Transfer Pricing 2016 Guide
2015:
Tier 1 firm in International Tax Review,
World Tax 2015 Guide to World‟s
Leading Tax Firms for the eighth
consecutive year
Tier 2 firm in International Tax Review,
World Transfer Pricing 2015 Guide
2014:
Tier 1 firm in International Tax
Review, World Tax 2014 Guide to
World‟s Leading Tax Firms
Tier 2 firm in International Tax
Review, World Transfer Pricing 2014
Guide
Most Active Transaction Advisor for
Private Equity, M&A by Venture
Intelligence
Mukesh Butani, New Delhi
+91 11 3066 3010
Rajeev Dimri, New Delhi +91 124 669 5050 [email protected]
Amit Jain
Suchint Majmudar Kaushik Saranjame
Sahiba Tandon Niraj Shah
erstwhile section 80-IB(10) of the IT Act] and completed in accordance with
such approval, the restriction of the maximum commercial area could not be
applied retroactively and deduction under that section could not be denied.
Key judgements relating to tax holiday provisions
6. Deduction under section 10B of the IT Act where part of the activities
were outsourced
The Allahabad High Court in the case of MKU (Armours) Pvt. Ltd.8 , reversing
the Tribunal‟s judgement, held that benefit of section 10B of the IT Act has to
be allowed to the taxpayer even if part of the manufacturing process was
outsourced by the taxpayer. In coming to this decision, the Allahabad High
Court noted that only a part of the manufacturing process was outsourced by
the taxpayer (which was also carried out under the direct control and
supervision of the taxpayer‟s employees), and that a new product came into
existence at the end of the entire manufacturing process.
The Allahabad High Court also held that upon transfer of the undertaking on
a lock, stock and barrel basis, the successor was eligible to claim the
deduction under section 10B of the IT Act in respect of the undertaking for the
unexpired period.
7. Deduction under section 10A of the IT Act where part of the software
development work was sub-contracted to an Associated Enterprise
abroad
The Karnataka High Court in the case of Mphasis Software & Services Pvt.
Ltd.9 , affirming the Tribunal‟s judgement, held that taxpayer who had sub-
contracted part of its “on-site” software development work to an Associated
Enterprise (“AE”) abroad was eligible to claim deduction under section 10A of
the IT Act in respect of the same. The Karnataka High Court noted the
following:
Only a part of the “on-site” work was sub-contracted to the AE.
The Master Service Agreement provides for the AE to work under the
complete control and supervision of the taxpayer.
The software produced by the AE during the “on-site” work is required to
be as per the specifications given by the taxpayer.
The AE has no connection or dealings with the end customers.
The taxpayer provides all the relevant information and inputs to the AE
Gokul Chaudhri, New Delhi
+91 124 669 5040
Bobby Parikh, Mumbai
+91 22 6135 7010
Amit Jain, Pune +91 20 668 19010
on behalf of the end customers.
The AE is only answerable to the taxpayer and not to the end customers.
The proprietorship of the software remains with taxpayer who is solely
responsible for risks and rewards arising out of this sub-contracting
arrangement.
Therefore, the Karnataka High Court regarded the “on-site” work sub-
contracted to the AE as being carried out on behalf of the taxpayer and
overruled the Revenue‟s argument that there was no nexus between the work
carried out by the taxpayer and “on-site” work sub-contracted to the AE, and
upheld the taxpayer‟s deduction claim under section 10A of the IT Act.
8. Deduction under section 10A of the IT Act upon transfer of employees
to a STP Unit
The Pune bench of the Tribunal in the case of iGate Computer Systems Ltd.10
, held that the taxpayer is eligible to claim deduction under section 10A of the
IT Act in respect of its STP Unit even if certain employees of another unit
have been transferred to the STP Unit. The Tribunal held that there was no
formative condition under section 10A of the IT Act relating to any specific
percentage of new employees, and further, since the taxpayer had also met
the criteria laid down in CBDT‟s Circular No. 14 of 2014 relating to the
maximum permissible percentage of transfer of employees in the first year of
commencement of the new STP Unit, it was not a case of splitting up or
reconstruction of an existing business so as to disentitle the STP Unit from
claiming the deduction under that section.
The Tribunal also allowed the taxpayer to set off losses of the STP Unit on
the ground that the provision of section 10A of the IT Act was not in the
nature of an “exemption” and losses of eligible Units could be carried forward
and set off in future years.
9. No deduction under section 10B of the IT Act in respect of a voluntary
Transfer Pricing adjustment
The Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agilisys IT Services India
Pvt Ltd. 11
, held that no deduction under section 10B of the IT Act was
allowable to the taxpayer in respect of a voluntary Transfer Pricing
adjustment for the reason that the increased profit was not brought into India
by the taxpayer in foreign exchange. The Tribunal held that the intent of
section 10B of the IT Act allowing a deduction in respect of export profits was
boosting the country‟s exports and earning foreign exchange, and where
these conditions are not satisfied by the taxpayer, the deduction under that
section will not be allowable.
The Tribunal also held that the deduction under section 10B of the IT Act has
to be computed before setting off losses of another unit in line with the
decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Black & Veatch Consulting
Pvt. Ltd.12
Key judgements in the context of Profits & Gains from Business or Profession
10. section 43B overrides presumptive taxation provisions
The Panaji bench of the Tribunal in the case of Good Luck Kinetic.13
, held
that disallowance under section 43B of the IT Act would apply even in a
situation where the taxpayer income is being assessed under the
presumptive taxation provisions of section 44AF thereof where an amount
equal to 5% of the turnover of the taxpayer is deemed to be the business
income of the taxpayer. The Tribunal noted that while both sections 43B and
44AF were non-obstante provisions, there was a difference in the language of
these two provisions, and the former had precedence over all other
provisions relating to computation of business income including section 44AF
of the IT Act. The Tribunal held that the amount of disallowance under
section 43B will need to be added to the amount computed under section
44AF of the IT Act in computing the business income of the taxpayer.
Key judgements in the context of other provisions of the IT Act
11. Taxability of “gift” in the hands of a company
The Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of KDA Enterprises Pvt Ltd.14
,
held that receipt by the taxpayer from a company of an amount (being
dividend payable by the company to its shareholder companies) tantamount
to a “gift”. The Tribunal noted that a “gift” is typically a capital receipt and not
taxable, except where such a “gift” is received by an individual or a HUF. The
taxpayer being a company, the same was not taxable under section 56 of the
IT Act in its case. The Tribunal also held that the same was not taxable in the
hands of the taxpayer under section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act since there was no
commonality of shareholding between the taxpayer and the shareholder
companies). The Tribunal further held that since the taxpayer had not
credited the amount to its Profit & Loss Account, the same could not be
included in its “book profit” or taxed under section 115JB of the IT Act in line
with the principles emanating from the SC‟s judgement in the case of Apollo
Tyres Ltd.15
In coming to the above decision, the Tribunal examined the
genuineness of the transactions, and noted that “natural love and affection” is
not a necessary ingredient to constitute a valid “gift” and corporate entities
can also be parties to a “gift” transaction as evidenced by section 56(2)(viia)
of the IT Act. The Tribunal noted that in this case, the act of giving and
receiving “gift” was covered under the Memorandum and Articles of the
respective companies.
12. Set off of long term shares loss against gains from sale of land
The Mumbai bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd.16
, held that long term capital losses from sale of listed shares and mutual fund
units, where STT has been paid, can be set off against long term capital
gains arising from sale of land. The Tribunal, relying upon certain
judgements of the SC and High Courts, noted the distinction between a
source of income being altogether exempt from tax (in which case neither the
profits nor the losses from that source enter into the computation of income)
as against only certain streams of income from a particular source of income
being exempt (in which case the losses from that source enter into the
computation of income). The Tribunal noted that in this case, the source of
income, being income from sale of listed shares and mutual fund units, is
taxable in case it is in the nature of short term capital gain/loss. The Tribunal
accordingly held that the exemption contemplated under section 10(38) of the
IT Act only extended to long term capital gains and not long term capital
losses, and such long term capital losses should be considered for set off
against long term capital gains in computing the total income.
13. Cost sharing arrangement and mere reimbursement does not fall with
the ambit of fees for technical services
The Bombay High Court in case of A.P. Moller Maersk.17
, affirming the
Tribunal‟s judgement, held that payment made by Indian agents to the
taxpayer (a foreign shipping company) towards utilization of a global
telecommunication facility does not constitute “fees for technical services”,
on the basis that it was merely a cost sharing arrangement between the
taxpayer and its agents to carry out the business more efficiently where the
taxpayer did not earn any profit, as well as the fact that the provision of the
facility was an automated process and did not involve any human element.
14. Explanation to section 80IB(9) of the IT Act treating all blocks under a
single contract as a single undertaking for the purpose of deduction, is
prospective and not retrospective
The Gujarat High Court in the case of Niko Resources Ltd.18
, on a writ
petition filed by the taxpayer, held that the Explanation to section 80-IB(9) of
the IT Act, introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, treating all blocks
licensed under a single contract under the New Exploration Licensing Policy
as a single “undertaking”, with retrospective effect from April 1, 2000, is
unconstitutional. The Gujarat High Court held that prior to the introduction of
the said Explanation, taxpayer was eligible for the deduction in respect of
each block separately, and the said Explanation took away this vested right
retrospectively. The Gujarat High Court held that the introduction of the said
Explanation was a substantive amendment and not merely clarificatory,
declaratory or curative one, and hence, could not be applied retrospectively.
Key judgements in the context of Reassessment
15. Reassessment notice invalid as the notice was served on the wrong
address
The Delhi High Court in the case of Chetan Gupta.19
, affirming the Tribunal‟s
judgement, held that the reassessment notice served on a wrong address is
invalid, and quashed the reassessment on account of this “jurisdictional”
defect.
16. Reassessment invalid if the issue is dealt with by the DRP
The Delhi High Court in case of Lahmeyer Holding GmbH.20
, in writ
proceedings, held that the DRP proceedings are a part of assessment
proceedings, and issues examined by the DRP cannot be re-agitated by the
Assessing Officer (“AO”) in reassessment proceedings, since it would amount
to “change of opinion” which is not permissible in law.
Transfer Pricing
17. Transaction between Indian Head Office (“HO”) and its foreign Branch
Office (“BO”) - not an international transaction
The taxpayer, Aithent Technologies Pvt Ltd.21
, an Indian company, reported
transactions with its BO in Canada. International transactions were
benchmarked following Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM”). During
the course of transfer pricing audit, comparables adopted by taxpayer were
altered and an adjustment of INR 8.61 crores was made by the Transfer
Pricing Officer (“TPO”). The adjustment proposed by TPO was confirmed by
Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). On appeal by taxpayer to Tribunal, it was
observed that taxpayer had reported the transactions between the HO in
India and the BO in Canada as a matter of abundant caution. A transaction
between HO in India and its BO cannot be considered as an 'international
transaction' since there should be two or more separate AEs for a
transaction. The Tribunal, based on principle of mutuality, observed that no
person can transact with self or earn any profit or suffer loss from self. The
Tribunal further ruled that the aggregate accounts of HO in India included
BO‟s operations as well. Accordingly, such income of the HO would be set
off with the equal amount of expense of the BO, thereby leaving no
separately identifiable income on account of this transaction.
18. Cost Plus Method („CPM‟) is the Most Appropriate Method („MAM‟) for
contract manufacturers
The taxpayer, GE Medical Systems India (P.) Ltd.22
, a contract manufacturer
of medical equipment and components, rendered engineering services to its
group companies. The taxpayer adopted CPM as MAM and selected
comparables which were engaged in contract manufacturing of various
products ranging from base metal to auto ancillaries. TPO rejected the
comparables on the ground that the taxpayer being a manufacturer of
medical equipment can only be compared with companies which are
manufacturer of similar products. The taxpayer contended that for CPM
functional comparability is more important than product comparability. If the
comparables were being considered on the basis of products, then the MAM
to determine the Arm‟s Length Price (“ALP”) would be TNMM. The taxpayer
also claimed that such comparables would spend more on advertisement and
marketing resulting in higher margins vis a vis taxpayer. The TPO, rejected
the taxpayer's contention which was confirmed by The Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)”) granted adjustment on account of marketing
and selling expenses based on actual expenditure incurred by the
comparable companies as well as working capital adjustment. This resulted
in the „nil‟ adjustment. On appeal to the Tribunal, it was held that as a general
rule CPM would be the MAM in the case of contract manufacturers but that
would be subject to the satisfaction of the parameters laid down in rule 10C
(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. These parameters include, among
others, degree of comparability between international transaction and
uncontrolled transaction and extent of reliable adjustments. Further, the
Tribunal held that the claim of the taxpayer has to be tested on the basis of
the applicable provisions of law and it cannot be rejected solely on the basis
that it was contrary to the stand which the taxpayer had taken originally.
19. Use of Multiple Year Data upheld on the basis of taxpayer‟s fluctuating
profit margins
The taxpayer, Innodata Isogen India Pvt Ltd.23
, was engaged in provision of
Information Technology Enabled Services (“ITeS”) to its parent company.
The taxpayer‟ revenue model was based on a price per transaction /
transmission which was determined as a percentage of the sale price derived
by the AEs from the sale to the ultimate end customer. Thereby, the
taxpayer‟s revenues are directly linked to the revenues generated by the
AEs. The taxpayer applied TNMM using multiple year data for benchmarking
ITeS. The TPO, however determined the ALP of international transaction
using current year data and consequently made an adjustment. The CIT(A)
deleted the addition made by the TPO. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed an
appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the taxpayer‟s
revenues and margins fluctuated widely on a year to year basis (as it was
dependent on the revenues generated by its AEs), although on a long term
basis it would earn a margin commensurate with its functions and risks. The
Tribunal distinguished taxpayer‟s revenue model from cost plus service
model, which would earn a low and consistent returns on a year on year
basis. As regards multiple year data, the Tribunal held that in taxpayer‟s own
case in Assessment Year 2002-03, the TPO itself used multiple year data
owing to wide variations in profit margins and no cogent reasons were given
by the TPO for not using multiple year data in the instant year. Accordingly,
the Tribunal upheld the order passed by CIT(A).
20. Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (“AMP”) benchmarking with
TNMM possible only after conducting functional analysis of
comparables
The taxpayer, Zimmer India (P.) Ltd.24
, an Indian company was engaged in
the business of importing, marketing and distributing orthopedic implants and
instruments to customers in India. In the course of assessment proceedings,
the TPO observed that taxpayer was a routine distributor exposed to normal
risks and was incurring high AMP expenses owing to brand building for AEs
who were the final beneficiary. The TPO applied bright line test, added a
mark-up of 12.50 percent and made an adjustment. The DRP upheld the
addition made by the TPO. On appeal before the Tribunal, the taxpayer
relied on the High Court‟s ruling in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile
Communications India Pvt Ltd [2015] 55 taxmann.com 240 (Delhi) and
stated that since its operating margins were higher than that of comparables
under TNMM, no adjustment was warranted. Further, it was submitted by the
taxpayer that the TPO wrongly considered selling expenses as part of AMP.
The Tribunal rejected the taxpayer‟s argument that since AO / TPO had
accepted and adopted TNMM, no separate bifurcation of AMP expenses was
required. The Tribunal held that the TPO had applied the bright line test by
considering routine distributors as comparables, without conducting study
with reference to the functions performed by comparables vis-a-vis functions
performed by taxpayer in regard to its marketing and distribution activities. If
there is difference in the functions between the taxpayer and comparables,
suitable adjustment was to be first made to bring both at same pedestals.
The matter was restored back to the file of the DRP / TPO for carrying out
detailed functional analysis of the comparables. In respect of selling
expenses wrongly considered as AMP by the TPO, the Tribunal in view of the
decision of the High Court in Sony (supra) held that these expenses are
directly attributable to the taxpayer‟s selling activities and thus have to be
excluded from the components selected by the TPO in regard to AMP
expenses.
21. Comparison of AMP functions is sine qua non for determination of ALP
The Delhi bench of Tribunal, in the case of Toshiba India (P) Ltd.25
,
interpreted the Delhi High Court‟s ruling in Sony Ericsson Mobile
Communications India Pvt Ltd (supra) on the issue of determination of ALP of
AMP expenses. The Tribunal clarified that the High Court has allowed the
aggregation of distribution functions with AMP function only for determining
the ALP of these transactions in a bundled manner, wherein suitable
comparables having undertaken similar functions for both distribution and
AMP expenses are to be selected, making it clear that the examination of
„AMP functions‟ with comparables is sine qua non for determination of ALP of
an interwined international transaction i.e. distribution function.
22. Internal TNMM accepted for software development services
The taxpayer M/s Valtech India Systems P. Ltd 26
was engaged in the
business of providing software development services and training to its AEs
as well as to non-AEs. For benchmarking the said international transaction,
the taxpayer applied internal TNMM claiming that it had earned a lower
margin from non-AEs vis-à-vis AEs and hence no adjustment was warranted.
The TPO rejected the analysis, applied external TNMM (set of comparables)
and proposed an adjustment. The DRP agreed with the view of the TPO on
using external TNMM. On appeal, the Tribunal noted that the taxpayer‟s
transactions with non-AEs abroad were more than 25 percent of the total
value of the international transactions and also the taxpayer had
demonstrated that the services rendered to non-AEs are similar to that
provided to AEs. Further, the Tribunal observed that the TPO and the
Tribunal in earlier assessment years had accepted the instant methodology of
the taxpayer for benchmarking purpose. On this basis, the Tribunal accepted
the contention of the taxpayer and remitted the matter to the TPO for making
analysis using internal TNMM.
23. ALP of royalty cannot be determined basis Foreign Investment
Promotion Board (“FIPB”) approval nor can it be clubbed with other
transactions
The taxpayer, A.W. Faber Castell (India.) Pvt Ltd 27
entered into various
international transactions including payment of royalty on account of
utilization of trade mark of parent company. For royalty transaction, taxpayer
applied Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method claiming that it had
paid royalty only after taking approval from the Government of India. The
FIPB had approved the rate of royalty payment up to 8 percent on exports
and 5 percent on domestic sales. Since taxpayer was paying royalty at 3
percent, which was less than the FIPB approved rate, the transaction was
argued to be at ALP. However, the TPO rejected the analysis and
determined the ALP of stated transaction as nil.
The DRP confirmed the action of the TPO. On appeal, the Tribunal held that
the approval from FIPB, „cannot substitute the determination of arm’s length
price under the provisions of the IT Act’, since the approval granted by the
FIPB for payment of royalty is not in context of the ALP under the IT Act.
Further, with respect to taxpayer‟s argument of demonstrating ALP through
clubbing of royalty transaction under TNMM, the Tribunal observed that the
payment of royalty is a separate international transaction and hence cannot
be clubbed with the transactions of purchase and sale of goods and material.
Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the TPO for fresh
adjudication.
24. Insignificant sales made to Non-AE cannot be regarded as evidence for
internal CUP
The taxpayer, Vijaydimon Diamond (India) Pvt Ltd 28
undertook various
international transactions in the nature of purchase and sale of diamond/gold
with its AEs. For benchmarking purposes, taxpayer claimed that low end
jewellery was sold to AEs as well as to non-AEs and on this basis applied
internal CUP as MAM. Further, it was submitted that percentage of value
addition made by taxpayer with AEs was lower than that with non AEs and
hence transactions were at ALP. However, the TPO rejected CUP method
and applied TNMM by selecting certain comparables. This action of the TPO
was further upheld by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, the taxpayer filed an appeal
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the taxpayer‟s sales
transaction with the AE comprised 99.41 percent of the total sales whereas
the sales to non-AE were merely 0.59 percent. Thereby, non AE sale was
negligible in comparison to the sale transaction with the AEs. Further, the
Tribunal observed that the sales made to non-AEs were not free from
influence of purchase transaction from AEs. Held, that CUP was
inappropriate and TNMM was the MAM.
25. Time limit for passing the order where reference is made to the TPO
The Delhi bench of Tribunal, in the case of Honda Trading Corporation.29
, in
connection with the time limit available for passing the order, wherever
reference to the TPO is made, has held that the term `draft order‟ is actually
different in ambit from the term `assessment order‟ and no time limit has been
prescribed for the passing of the draft order. As there is no time limit
prescribed for the passing of the draft order, such order is required to be
passed within a reasonable time. The time limit for passing of the final
assessment order pursuant to the order of the TPO, is contained in section
144C(4) and (13) of the ITA and the time limit given under section 153 of the
IT Act has no relation whatsoever with the passing of the draft order. The
Tribunal holds final assessment order valid, since draft order (post TPO's
order) was passed by AO within reasonable time, however holds that TPO's
order was time-barred. The Tribunal also brings to notice an incoherence in
the provisions, namely that section 153 of the IT Act shall continue to govern
time limit for passing TPO order but AO‟s draft order to be passed
independent of the time limit given under section 153 of the IT Act, and thus
recommends passing a suitable legislative amendment to rectify the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 (2015) 55 taxmann.com 361 (SC) 2 (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) 3 (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) 4 TS-159-SC-2015 5 (2015) 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 6 TS-282-SC-2015 7 (2015) 57 taxmann.com 313 (SC) 8 TS-213-HC-2015 (ALL) 9 TS-497-HC-2015 (KAR) 10 TS-317-ITAT-2015 (PUN) 11 (2015) 58 taxmann.com 284 (Mumbai Tribunal) 12 (2012) 20 taxmann.com 727 (Bombay HC) 13 (2015) 58 taxmann.com 267 (Panaji Tribunal) 14 (2015) 57 taxmann.com 284 (Mumbai Tribunal) 15 (2002) 122 taxman 562 (SC) 16 TS-326-ITAT-2015 (Mumbai Tribunal)
17[2015] 59 taxmann.com 105 (Bombay HC) 18(2015) 55 taxmann.com 455 (Gujarat HC) 19TS-524-HC-2015 (DEL) 20TS-283-HC-2015 (DEL)
21[2015] 59 taxmann.com 452 (Delhi Tribunal) 22[2015] 61 taxmann.com 109 (Bangalore Tribunal) 23(ITA No . 1528/Del/2011) (Delhi Tribunal) dated June 30, 2015 24[2015] 60 taxmann.com 170 (Delhi Tribunal) 25[2015] 59 taxmann.com 169 (Delhi Tribunal) 26(ITA No 22/BANG/2014) (Bangalore Tribunal) dated September 11, 2015 27(ITA No 577/MUM/2015) (Mumbai Tribunal) dated August 05, 2015 28(ITA No 5182/MUM/2013) (Mumbai Tribunal) dated August 05, 2015 29[2015] 61 taxmann.com 233 (Delhi Tribunal)
BMR Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
36B, Dr. RK Shirodkar Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India
Tel: +91 22 6135 7000 | Fax: +91 22 6135 7070
BMR and Community
BMR has a strong commitment to good citizenship and community service. We are as dedicated to community work as we are to client
work. Wherever appropriate we partner with our clients in fulfilling our social responsibility. Through the firm‟s „Go Green Initiative‟ we
adopt environment friendly practices at our work place. The firm actively supports SOS Children‟s Village, Indian Red Cross Society and
MillionTrees Gurgaon campaign. For more details on our social and environmental responsibility programme, click here.
Disclaimer:
This newsletter has been prepared for clients and Firm personnel only. It provides general information and guidance as on date of
preparation and does not express views or expert opinions of BMR Advisors. The newsletter is meant for general guidance and no
responsibility for loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this newsletter will be
accepted by BMR Advisors. It is recommended that professional advice be sought based on the specific facts and circumstances. This
newsletter does not substitute the need to refer to the original pronouncements.
Copyright 2015. BMR Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved
In case, you do not wish to receive this newsletter, click here to unsubscribe
Top Related