1.
|
Settlement application can't be rejected just because assessee has accepted dept's view on classification of goods.
|
Bombay High Court
|
Under Water Services Company Ltd. v. Union of India
|
2
|
No extension of time-limit under Section 54F in absence of genuine hardship
|
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
Shivinder Singh Brar, Karta HUF v. Central Board of Direct Taxes
|
3
|
Adjustment should be made for increase in cost of materials if assessee has fixed price contract with AE
|
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
|
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) , Circle-8, Ahmedabad v.Summit (India) Water Treatment & Services Ltd.
|
First Case
According to the Petitioners, the Barge having been classified in CTH 89011040, no duty should have been paid on whole of the Barge including the equipment thereof by virtue of they being covered under Item No. 352 of Notification No. 21/2002.
Third Case
And the Cross Objection of the assessee reads as under:-
The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the transfer pricing adjustment to the extent of Rs. 21,44,692/- under section 92CA on the ground that:
- The calculation of Profit Level Indicator [PLI] made by the assessee company is not correct;
- Iron (Exchange) India Ltd. has not been accepted as a comparable company for the purpose of bench marking the margins since the company is in the business of water treatment plant and not in the water treatment chemicals. In as much as:
- The Unit of the assessee company is situated in SEZ and hence entitled for benefits under Section 10A and hence the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable;
- The AO has ignored the margins made by the AE in US while making an adjustment.
- Iron (Exchange) India Ltd. is having the business of water treatment chemicals and plants and that it is directly comparable with the business of the assessee company. This company was accepted as comparable during earlier years.
0 Comments