Author: editor

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has recently released a Guidance Note on Report Under Section 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Transfer Pricing). The Guidance Note is very comprehensive and incorporates the significant amendments made by the the Finance Act, 2012 such as the definition of International Transaction, Advance Pricing Agreement (APA), Amendments relating to Penalties, etc. It explains all the important concepts in a clear and easy-to-understand manner

Constitution Of The Bombay High Court’s Tax Bench w.e.f. 08.04.2013

The Cabinet Secretariat has issued an important Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2013 pointing out that after the disbanding (pursuant to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation vs. UOI 332 ITR 58(SC)) of the Committee on Disputes set up to give clearance for litigation between Govt. Departments and PSUs, an attempt had been made by some Govt. Depts/ PSUs to revive the litigation even where the COD had earlier rejected clearance. The Cabinet Committee has now directed that cases where the COD had earlier rejected clearance for litigation should NOT be revived. It has also threatened that violations will be viewed seriously and may attract disciplinary action

It has been brought to the notice of CBDT that there is divergence of views amongst the field officers and taxpayers regarding the functional profile of development centres engaged in contract R&D services for the purposes of transfer pricing audit. Moreover, while at times taxpayers have been insisting that they are contract R&D service providers with insignificant risk, the TPOs are treating them as full or significant risk-bearing entities and making transfer pricing adjustments accordingly. The issue has been examined in CBDT. It is hereby clarified that a development centre in India may be treated as a contract R&D service provider with insignificant risk if the following conditions are cumulatively complied with

It has been brought to the notice of CBDT that clarification is needed for selection of profit split method (PSM) as most appropriate method. The issue has been examined in CBDT. It is hereby clarified that while selecting PSM as the most appropriate method, the following points may be kept in mind

The Directorate of Income-tax (Systems) has issued a letter dated 21.03.2013 drawing attention to the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Court on Its Own Motion vs. CIT where directions were issued that the department has to follow the procedure prescribed in s. 245 before making any adjustment of refund payable by the CPC. As the Court has held that the assessee must be given an opportunity to file a response before any adjustment of refund is made, the Assessing Officers have been directed to comply with the High Court’s order and communicate their findings on adjustable demand to the CPC which will then process the refund and adjust the demand

However, it has been pointed out that the language of the proposed sub-section (5) of section 90 could mean that the Tax Residency Certificate produced by a resident of a contracting state could be questioned by the Income Tax Authorities in India. The government wishes to make it clear that that is not the intention of the proposed sub-section (5) of section 90. The Tax Residency Certificate produced by a resident of a contracting state will be accepted as evidence that he is a resident of that contracting state and the Income Tax Authorities in India will not go behind the TRC and question his resident status

The Finance Bill 2013, as introduced in Parliament today, 28th February 2013, is available for download

Vide Order No. 26 of 2013 dated 08.02.2013, the CBDT has promoted officers in the grade of Commissioner/ Director of Income-tax to the grade of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax in the pay scale of Rs. 67,000 – 79,000 with immediate effect

Pursuant to the strictures passed by the Supreme Court in DIT vs. Citibank N.A. over the delay in filing SLPs, the CBDT has issued a letter dated 04.02.2013 in which it has pointed out that even after conveying the concern of the Board over the inordinate delay in receiving SLP proposals, about 50% of the proposals are received late. The Board has now directed that in cases where the SLP proposals are sent late, the CCIT/DGIT should fix responsibility for the delay and the name of the officer(s) concerned should be specified in the proposal itself