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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2016 (4) TMI 521 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        ITAT partially allows appeal, deletes adjustments on royalty & import/export issues. Capital losses not addressed. The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting the adjustments concerning royalty payments, import of PTOP, and export ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            ITAT partially allows appeal, deletes adjustments on royalty & import/export issues. Capital losses not addressed.

                            The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting the adjustments concerning royalty payments, import of PTOP, and export of IBB. The issues regarding the set-off of capital losses and business losses were not pursued and therefore not addressed in the decision.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Addition under Section 92CA(3) in respect of payment of royalty to the associated enterprise.
                            2. Addition under Section 92CA(3) in respect of import of product PTOP from the associated enterprise.
                            3. Addition under Section 92CA(3) in respect of export of the product IBB to the associated enterprise.
                            4. Set off of short-term capital loss against short-term capital gains.
                            5. Set off of business loss against short-term and long-term capital gains.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Addition under Section 92CA(3) in respect of payment of royalty to the associated enterprise:
                            The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 2,71,11,495 under Section 92CA(3) related to royalty payments to Schenectady International Inc. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) had rejected the arm's length price (ALP) claimed by the assessee, which was based on the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) approval. The TPO determined the ALP to be NIL, arguing that the assessee incurred an operating loss during the year. The ITAT found that the TPO's method was unscientific and not judicially acceptable. The ITAT upheld the assessee's grievance, citing judicial precedents that RBI approval can be a reasonable CUP input for determining ALP. The adjustment of Rs. 2,71,11,495 was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

                            2. Addition under Section 92CA(3) in respect of import of product PTOP from the associated enterprise:
                            The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 8,28,196 related to the import of PTOP from Schenectady Korea Limited. The TPO had determined the ALP to be NIL due to the lack of comparable uncontrolled transactions provided by the assessee. The DRP upheld the adjustment but limited it to Rs. 8,28,196 by adopting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The ITAT noted that PTOP is a generic product and that the CUP method, as employed by the assessee, was appropriate. The ITAT found that the geographical differences and quantity variations did not materially affect the comparability. The ITAT upheld the assessee's grievance and directed the deletion of the adjustment of Rs. 8,28,196.

                            3. Addition under Section 92CA(3) in respect of export of the product IBB to the associated enterprise:
                            The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 41,19,424 related to the export of IBB. The TPO had determined the ALP adjustment based on the assessee's incurred loss on the transaction and applied a markup of 10.65% on the cost. The DRP confirmed the TPO's action, rejecting the assessee's CUP data based on International Business Information Services (IBIS). The ITAT found that IBB is a generic product, and the CUP method based on customs data was reasonable. The ITAT held that the TPO's rejection of the CUP method due to the loss incurred was irrelevant. The ITAT upheld the assessee's grievance and deleted the adjustment of Rs. 41,19,424.

                            4. Set off of short-term capital loss against short-term capital gains:
                            The assessee raised grievances about the AO not following the DRP's direction to set off short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,44,134 against short-term capital gains of Rs. 29,12,827. The assessee argued that the AO erred in first adjusting the business losses against the capital gains. No specific arguments were advanced, and these grievances were treated as not pressed.

                            5. Set off of business loss against short-term and long-term capital gains:
                            The assessee contested the AO's action of setting off business loss of Rs. 14,38,04,694 against short-term capital gain of Rs. 29,12,827 and long-term capital gain of Rs. 25,29,16,974. The assessee argued that the business loss should be carried forward instead of treating the total income as nil. No specific arguments were advanced, and these grievances were treated as not pressed.

                            Conclusion:
                            The appeal was partly allowed, with the ITAT deleting the adjustments related to royalty payments, import of PTOP, and export of IBB. The grievances regarding the set-off of capital losses and business losses were not pressed and thus not adjudicated.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found