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 grants relief on warranty claims, remands welfare issue for verification.

        GKN Driveline (India) Ltd. Versus DCIT (LTU), Circle 1, New Delhi

        GKN Driveline (India) Ltd. Versus DCIT (LTU), Circle 1, New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Transfer Pricing – Purchase of raw materials and components.
        2. Transfer Pricing – Management Consultancy and Business Auxiliary Services (GSA charges).
        3. Disallowance of Provision for Warranty Claims.
        4. Disallowance of GSA charges.
        5. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.
        6. Disallowance of welfare expenditure under the head ‘Miscellaneous expenditure’.
        7. Disallowance due to stock difference.
        8. General Grounds (Penalty proceedings, interest under Section 234B and 234D, and recovery of interest under Section 244A).

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Transfer Pricing – Purchase of raw materials and components:
        The assessee contested the adjustment of INR 45,871,453/- made by the TPO and upheld by the DRP regarding the international transaction of purchasing raw materials and components. The TPO rejected the Cost Plus Method (CPM) and instead applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), using the appellant as the tested party. The DRP supported this, citing the lack of financial details of the Associated Enterprises (AEs) and the necessity for reliable comparables. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's arguments, noting the absence of detailed FAR analysis for the AE and the unavailability of financial details. Thus, the adjustment made by the TPO and upheld by the DRP was confirmed.

        2. Transfer Pricing – Management Consultancy and Business Auxiliary Services (GSA charges):
        The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as 'not pressed'.

        3. Disallowance of Provision for Warranty Claims:
        The AO disallowed INR 13,708,513 related to the provision for warranty claims, treating it as contingent. The DRP directed the AO to verify the method of working of the provision and allow it if based on scientific principles. The AO gave partial relief but disallowed the remaining amount. The Tribunal, referencing past decisions in the assessee’s favor and the Supreme Court ruling in Rotork Controls (I) Private Limited vs. CIT, held that the provision for warranty claims is an allowable expenditure. Consequently, this ground was allowed in favor of the assessee.

        4. Disallowance of GSA charges:
        The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as 'not pressed'.

        5. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act:
        The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as 'not pressed'.

        6. Disallowance of welfare expenditure under the head ‘Miscellaneous expenditure’:
        The AO disallowed INR 825,822 incurred on welfare activities, stating the assessee failed to establish these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal observed that such expenditures could be considered corporate social responsibility and allowable subject to conditions under sections 32 to 36 of the Act. The issue was remanded back to the AO for verification, and the assessee was directed to provide necessary evidence. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

        7. Disallowance due to stock difference:
        The AO disallowed INR 84,596,885 due to physical loss of stock, citing discrepancies noted by auditors and lack of evidence such as FIRs or insurance claims. The DRP upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal found the assessee failed to demonstrate the exact reason for the loss or measures taken to compensate for it. Consequently, this ground was dismissed.

        8. General Grounds:
        The Tribunal did not specifically address these grounds, implying they were not pressed or were consequential to the main issues discussed.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal providing relief on the provision for warranty claims and remanding the welfare expenditure issue for further verification. Other grounds were either dismissed or not pressed by the assessee.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found