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 (8) TMI 605 - 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 overturns disallowances under Income Tax Act, finds payments at arm's length The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the disallowances made under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. It held that the assessee had ...
                      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.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          Tribunal overturns disallowances under Income Tax Act, finds payments at arm's length

                          The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the disallowances made under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. It held that the assessee had demonstrated that the payments were at arm's length and not excessive or unreasonable. The Tribunal emphasized that the disallowances were arbitrary and lacked a factual basis, and there was no evidence of tax evasion to warrant the invocation of Section 40A(1).




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
                          2. Fair market value and reasonableness of expenses.
                          3. Tax neutrality and evasion considerations.
                          4. Burden of proof regarding excessive or unreasonable expenditure.
                          5. Applicability of Transfer Pricing provisions to domestic transactions.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act:
                          The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a portion of data processing charges paid by the assessee to its related party, Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, citing that the payments were excessive and unreasonable. The AO's reasons included the lack of additional expenditure by Amway, the absence of a break-up of services, and the impossibility of comparison with unrelated parties. The First Appellate Authority upheld the AO's decision, stating that the payments were excessive and unreasonable.

                          2. Fair Market Value and Reasonableness of Expenses:
                          The assessee argued that the AO did not establish the fair market value of the services and made arbitrary disallowances without valid material. The assessee also submitted a Transfer Pricing report to justify the arm's length nature of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide a benchmark for fair market value and made ad-hoc disallowances without factual justification. The Tribunal emphasized that reasonableness should be judged from the businessman's point of view and not by the Revenue.

                          3. Tax Neutrality and Evasion Considerations:
                          The assessee contended that the transaction was tax-neutral as both the assessee and Amway India were taxed at the maximum marginal rate, and there was no intention to evade tax. The Tribunal agreed, referencing CBDT Circular No. 6-P, which states that no disallowance should be made under Section 40A(2) if there is no attempt to evade tax. The Tribunal found no evidence of tax evasion and noted that the income of the payee company was higher than that of the assessee.

                          4. Burden of Proof Regarding Excessive or Unreasonable Expenditure:
                          The Tribunal held that the burden of proof to establish that the expenditure was not excessive or unreasonable lies with the assessee, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Hive Communications P.Ltd. vs. CIT. The assessee provided a Transfer Pricing report, which was not rebutted by the Revenue, thereby discharging its burden of proof. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to provide a valid basis for the disallowance.

                          5. Applicability of Transfer Pricing Provisions to Domestic Transactions:
                          The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's suggestion in CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia P.Ltd. that Transfer Pricing regulations could be applied to domestic transactions to determine fair market value. Although these provisions were not mandatory for domestic transactions during the assessment year in question, the assessee's use of a Transfer Pricing report to justify the payments was considered valid. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for not addressing the Transfer Pricing report and upheld the assessee's claim that the payments were at arm's length.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the disallowances made under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. It held that the assessee had demonstrated that the payments were at arm's length and not excessive or unreasonable. The Tribunal emphasized that the disallowances were arbitrary and lacked a factual basis, and there was no evidence of tax evasion to warrant the invocation of Section 40A(1).
                          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