Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Tribunal decision: Assessee appeal partly allowed, Revenue appeal dismissed. Remanded issues on service charges, depreciation. Disallowance under section 14A deleted.

        M/s. Huntsman International (India) Private Limited, Versus The DCIT, 10 (1) (1), And Vice-Versa,

        M/s. Huntsman International (India) Private Limited, Versus The DCIT, 10 (1) (1), And Vice-Versa, - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Erroneous disallowance of corporate service charges.
        2. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets.
        3. Disallowance under section 14A.
        4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Erroneous Disallowance of Corporate Service Charges:
        The assessee objected to the disallowance of corporate service charges amounting to Rs. 63,411,803 paid to its associated enterprises (AEs). The Assessing Officer (AO), Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) failed to appreciate the method followed by the assessee to benchmark the international transaction regarding corporate services. The TPO computed the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the corporate services as Rs. 4,505,000 based on an estimation of hours and hourly rates. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been remanded back to the DRP in previous assessment years (2009-10 and 2010-11) for re-adjudication by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The Tribunal directed the DRP to re-adjudicate the issue following the earlier directions, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

        2. Disallowance of Depreciation on Intangible Assets:
        The Revenue contested the DRP's direction to allow depreciation on intangible assets, specifically the Material Supply contract and Distribution network. The Tribunal noted that similar controversies had been resolved in favor of the assessee in earlier assessment years (2007-08 to 2010-11), where the Tribunal allowed the claim of depreciation on such intangible assets. The Tribunal affirmed the DRP's direction, stating that the impugned assets fall within the category of 'business or commercial rights' mentioned in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to allow depreciation on goodwill, following precedents in the assessee's own case for earlier years.

        3. Disallowance under Section 14A:
        The AO disallowed Rs. 5,95,20,534 under section 14A read with Rule 8D, without appreciating that the investments were strategic and made out of interest-free funds. The Tribunal observed that no exempt income was earned or received during the year under consideration. Citing the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decisions in Cheminvest Ltd. and Holcim India (Pvt.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that section 14A would not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned addition.

        4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
        The assessee objected to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 7 of the Act. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis, implying that the primary focus was on the substantive grounds of appeal related to disallowances and depreciation claims.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The issues related to corporate service charges and depreciation on intangible assets were remanded back to the DRP for re-adjudication, while the disallowance under section 14A was deleted. The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was not specifically adjudicated.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found