| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0716 (Karn-HC) : (2021) 431 ITR 0409 INCOME TAX ACT 1961
Section 92C
Where the fact that assessee had not complied with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 92A, had not been assailed by the revenue and mere fact of participation by one enterprise in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise, or the participation of one or more persons in the management or control or capital of both the enterprises shall not make them associated enterprises, unless the criteria specified in sub-section (2) are fulfilled, in view of the same the issue was decided in favour of assessee.
|
Transfer pricing - Computation of ALP - Selection of comparables -
Revenue filed appeal against the order of Tribunal dated 24-6-2016 wherein it was held that since the requirements laid down in section 92A (1) has not been fulfilled, therefore, the provisions of section 92A are not attracted to the fact situation of the case. Held: It is evident that sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 92A are interlinked and have to be read together. In case the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) are read independently, then one of the provisions would be rendered otiose which is impermissible in law in view of the well settled rule of statutory limitation. Therefore, the requirement contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 92A of the Act has to be complied with. It is also pertinent to mention here that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 92A of the Act, has not been assailed by the revenue.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2010-11
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|