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 (6) TMI 1008 - 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

        Tribunal directs verification of services provided by Associated Enterprise, emphasizing burden of proof on assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the evidence of actual services rendered by the Associated Enterprise (AE) and benchmark the ...
                      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.

                          Tribunal directs verification of services provided by Associated Enterprise, emphasizing burden of proof on assessee.

                          The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the evidence of actual services rendered by the Associated Enterprise (AE) and benchmark the transactions after ensuring the services were provided. Both the assessee and revenue's appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof on the assessee to demonstrate expenses were incurred for business purposes, irrespective of the financial health of the assessee.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions.
                          2. Assessment of administrative and business support service fees.
                          3. Proof of actual services rendered by the Associated Enterprise (AE).
                          4. Principle of consistency in tax assessments.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions:
                          The case involves cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-LTU, Bangalore, for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing and trading, reported several international transactions including import of raw materials, export of manufactured products, and provision of administrative and business support services by 3M Singapore. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) applied by the assessee for most transactions but contested the administrative business support service fee of Rs. 6,08,67,243 paid to 3M Singapore, determining the ALP for these services at nil.

                          2. Assessment of administrative and business support service fees:
                          The TPO's assessment was based on the observation that the services did not result in tangible benefits, the profitability of the assessee declined, and there was no cost-benefit analysis. The TPO concluded that the ALP for the administrative business support service fee should be nil, leading to an adjustment of Rs. 6,08,67,243. The CIT(A) partially agreed with the TPO, allowing expenses related to information technology services but disallowing other services due to insufficient evidence.

                          3. Proof of actual services rendered by the Associated Enterprise (AE):
                          The assessee provided a detailed note and evidence of services rendered by 3M Singapore, including information technology support, marketing and sales support, and laboratory and technical support services. The assessee argued that these services led to a significant growth in revenue and that similar expenses were allowed in previous years. The TPO, however, questioned the necessity and benefit of these services and found no conclusive evidence of their rendition. The Tribunal emphasized that while the necessity of incurring expenditure cannot be questioned by the TPO, the actual rendition of services must be conclusively proven by the assessee.

                          4. Principle of consistency in tax assessments:
                          The assessee argued for the application of the principle of consistency, citing that similar expenses were allowed in previous years. The Tribunal, however, held that each assessment year is separate and distinct, and the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax assessments. Therefore, the AO is not precluded from making inquiries in the current assessment year even if similar expenses were allowed in previous years without probe or inquiry.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of evidence regarding the actual rendition of services by the AE. The AO/TPO was directed to benchmark the transaction of rendering services after satisfying themselves that the services were actually rendered by the AE. Both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden of proving that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business lies on the assessee, and the financial health of the assessee cannot be a criterion to judge the allowability of an expense.
                          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