Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of assessee in tax appeals, rejects Revenue's claims, allows adjustments</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04, partly allowed the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2002-03, and fully allowed the ... Upward Addition Made u/s 92CA(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Adjustment in Export price of Spools - Held that:- Associate Enterprises had allowed assessee company to use spools collected from Associate Enterprise customers for packaging assessee's company's own manufacturing product for which no charge was levied by Associate Enterprise - Export of spools was secondary and ancillary activity of the assessee company - Assessee company was not the owner of the spools exported - assessee company was justified in exporting spools with 10% markup - Accordingly, sustaining addition made in respect of export of spools u/s.92CA(3) of the Act was not justified and to be deleted - appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The assessee had not involved in the process in an activity which was separate from the regular activity - There was nothing on record to suggest that huge activities involving cost would be involved - In the initial years the assessee had lesser requirement of these spools as the business was in the process of being established and stabilized - The system of collecting these spools also had to be put in place and stabilized to ensure its supply on a sustained basis - The system adopted by the TPO to allocate indirect expenses on the basis of turnover in initial assessment years was not justified - There was nothing on record to suggest any indirect expenses for determining the ALP of export of spools - However, no such adjustments were made by the TPO in A.Y. 2004-05 - Accordingly, the CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the addition as there was no element of indirect cost involved. Addition on the basis of Report of TPO – Import of Dies – Held that:- The goods being manufactured by the assessee company were an import substitution and therefore, foreign group companies do supply similar products to the Indian consumers - As the spools were reusable and had no utility to the buyers, as a measure to benefit local group companies, wherever possible, were involved in collection of empty spools for free from buyers for the packaging of their own products and its export in case the same are in excess of their requirement - spools have a consierable value and therefore the arrangement by which the assessee company gets the same free by only making expenses relating to cost of collection, was beneficial to the business of the assessee - the collection of spools, was incidental but for the purpose of the business - Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues Involved:1. Adjustment in export price of spools.2. Addition related to import of dies.3. Upward adjustment to Arm's Length Price (ALP) for various assessment years.Detailed Analysis:Adjustment in Export Price of Spools:The primary issue concerns the adjustment in the export price of spools. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 50,32,752/- based on the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) order, which suggested adjustments for the export of spools and import of dies. The spools, used for packaging steel tyre cords, are reusable and were exported by the assessee to various group companies at cost plus a 10% markup. The TPO included 25% of indirect costs in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP), which the assessee contested, arguing that the spools were obtained free of cost and only excess spools were exported.The First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) found the TPO's method of allocating indirect expenses based on turnover incorrect, especially since the business was still stabilizing. The CIT(A) adopted the method used by the TPO in A.Y. 2004-05, which considered the entire economic activity for allocating expenses, reducing the addition to Rs. 5,07,651/-. However, the Tribunal found no justification for any indirect cost allocation for the export of spools and ruled that the CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the addition to Rs. 5,07,651/-.Addition Related to Import of Dies:The second issue involves an addition of Rs. 70,676/- for the import of dies from China Bekaert Steel Cord Co. The TPO found that the margin applied on the cost of dies was inconsistent with the Chinese company's stated policy. The CIT(A) upheld the TPO's adjustment, finding it aligned with established Transfer Pricing principles. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and upheld the addition.Upward Adjustment to ALP for Various Assessment Years:For A.Y. 2003-04, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 62,83,591/- for the export of spools, which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs. 5,20,372/-. The Tribunal, following the reasoning for A.Y. 2002-03, ruled that the CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the addition and directed the Assessing Officer accordingly.For A.Y. 2004-05, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,04,55,037/-, which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs. 5,67,248/-. The assessee appealed, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in attributing indirect expenses to the export of spools. The Tribunal found that the assessee was justified in exporting spools with a 10% markup and directed the deletion of the Rs. 5,67,248/- addition.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04, partly allowed the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2002-03, and fully allowed the assessee's appeals for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found