It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot be so interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax….. If any double taxation is involved, the Legislature itself has, in express words, sanctioned it. It is not open to any one thereafter to invoke the general principles that the subject cannot be taxed twice over
Now, coming to the issue of transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO on account of services availed by the assessee from its associated enterprises and taking the value of said international transactions at Nil. In the first instance, we hold that TPO cannot sit in the judgment of business module of assessee and its intention to avail or not to avail any services from its associated enterprises. The role of TPO is to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee and whether the same is at arm’s length price when compared with similar transactions undertaken by external entities or internal comparables
The proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 and therefore it would be effective only from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the earlier assessment years. Where the Revenue urges that the money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Revenue to proceed against them in accordance with law. This would not entitle the Revenue to invoke Section 68 of the Act while assessing the respondent for not explaining the source of its source.
On the plain reading of Rule 11UA, it is revealed that while valuing the shares the book value of the assets and liabilities declared by the TEPL should be taken into consideration. There is no whisper under the provision of 11UA of the Rules to refer the fair market value of the land as taken by the Assessing Officer as applicable to the year under consideration
We find that DJ had admitted of issuing bogus bills. But, nowhere he had admitted that he had issued accommodation bills to the assessee. In our opinion, there is subtle but very important difference in issuing bogus bills and issuing accommodation bills to a particular party. The difference becomes very important when a supplier in his affidavit admits supply of goods.In this matter, the assessee had made no local sales and goods were exported, as stated earlier. So, as far as sales are concerned there is no doubt about the genuineness of such sales. It is also a fact that suppliers were paying VAT and were filing their returns of income.In response to the notices issued by the AO,under section 133(6) of the Act, the supplier had admitted the genuineness of the transaction
Recent Comments