Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
ITAT held that the Pr.CIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 to revise the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r/w s.144B. The assessee, engaged in software development and ITES, billed its entire services to AEs on a cost-plus 14.5% basis, with the disputed repairs and maintenance expenditure, including computer peripherals, forming part of operating cost recovered from AEs with markup. As the Revenue had not drawn any adverse inference on the transfer pricing study and the entire expenditure was effectively reimbursed with profit, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Consequently, the s.263 revision order was quashed and the assessee's appeal allowed.
ITAT held that the Pr.CIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 to revise the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r/w s.144B. The assessee, engaged in software development and ITES, billed its entire services to AEs on a cost-plus 14.5% basis, with the disputed repairs and maintenance expenditure, including computer peripherals, forming part of operating cost recovered from AEs with markup. As the Revenue had not drawn any adverse inference on the transfer pricing study and the entire expenditure was effectively reimbursed with profit, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Consequently, the s.263 revision order was quashed and the assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
