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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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 Remands Assessment Order for Fresh Adjudication</h1> <h3>M/s. Twilight Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy. CIT-9(3), Mumbai</h3> The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to issues related to natural ... Transfer pricing adjustment – Determination of ALP - Adoption of most appropriate method – Held that:- Following Twilight Jewellery (P.) Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014 (4) TMI 200 - ITAT MUMBAI] - if any of the direct methods like CUP, RPM or CPM can be adopted for bench marking the transactions, then they should be given preference and once these traditional methods are rendered inapplicable then only the TNMM should be resorted to as a last measure - this argument of applicability of internal CUP has not been taken up either before the TPO or before the DRP – thus, the matter is required to be remitted back to the TPO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues:1. Validity of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13).2. Selection of the most appropriate method (MAM) for determining arm's length price.3. Rejection of comparable companies selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) while adopting TNMM method.4. Confirmation of addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal was filed against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) for the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant contended that the assessment order was against the principles of natural justice due to directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-II (DRP). The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been considered in the appellant's case for the previous assessment year, where the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh examination. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the current appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication based on similar grounds.Issue 2:Regarding the selection of the most appropriate method (MAM) for determining the arm's length price, the appellant argued that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method (CUP) should have been considered due to the availability of internal CUP for the relevant year. The Tribunal observed that the business model of the appellant was unique, making benchmarking challenging. Referring to the earlier year's order, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering direct methods like CUP, RPM, or CPM before resorting to TNMM. As the argument for the applicability of internal CUP was not raised earlier, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-examine the MAM based on fresh submissions and comparables.Issue 3:The appellant contested the selection of comparable companies by the TPO while adopting the TNMM method, arguing that the chosen comparables were not suitable. Despite detailed objections raised before the DRP, the appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal, in line with its earlier order, directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to reconsider the comparability analysis with unrelated parties, emphasizing the need to explore the applicability of internal CUP and Cost Plus Method if the CUP method failed.Issue 4:The final issue revolved around the confirmation of the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal, following the precedent set in the earlier year, remanded the entire matter of transfer pricing adjustment back to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication, providing the appellant with a fair hearing opportunity. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessment was set aside for reconsideration in light of the Tribunal's observations.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on ensuring a fair and thorough examination of transfer pricing issues, emphasizing the importance of selecting the most appropriate method and comparables for determining the arm's length price. The remand back to the Assessing Officer/TPO aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the appellant and ensuring a just outcome in line with legal principles and precedents.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found