even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities.

Special Bench-the transfer pricing adjustment in relation to advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee for creating or improving the marketing intangible for and on behalf of the foreign AE is permissible - earning a mark-up from the Associated Enterprise in respect of AMP expenses incurred for and on behalf of the AE is also allowable.

Assessee is a 100% EOU engaged in the business of manufacturing of frozen and processed food products like paratha, samosa, dhokla, idli, dahi vada, fried bhindi pani puri, mint chutney etc.It filed its return of income electronically on 24.9.2008 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s.10B.

CIT (A) was not correct in holding that the payment made by assessee to Pehla Testing Lab was in any manner in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the ambit of section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 and accordingly there was no requirement in law to deduct tax at service on such payment.

assessee derived long term capital gain of Rs. 85,10,009/- on account of sale of residential flat and at the same time the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act of an amount of Rs. 84.00 lakh towards purchase of a land for constructing a residential house. Due to some reason or the other, the construction of the house could not be made within the period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the original asset, as per the terms of section 54 of the Act. As a result of which, the exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act was denied to the assesse.

The assessee is a florist and he uses advertising on search engines, i.e. by Google and Yahoo, to generate business. The way it works, in broad terms, is like this. Whenever anyone does a web search on the respective search engines, in looking for a particular website, and uses certain keywords, the advertisement of the assessee is shown alongwith the search results. The assessee had made payments aggregating to Rs. 30,44,166 in respect of online advertising to US based entities, namely Google Ireland Limited (Google Ireland, in short) and Overture Services Inc USA (Yahoo USA, in short) . However, no taxes were withheld from these payments.

(i)  Whether section 80AC is directory or mandatory, and - (ii)  Whether the returns filed in response to notices issued under section 153A can be taken as returns filed within the time limit stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act.

Whether CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,06,226/- being deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961. - Whether CIT (A) erred in holding that an advance received in the grab of share application money is beyond purview of section 2(22)(e) of IT Act, 1961.

the assessee could certainly claim the deductions under the provision of Section 80IA. One has to see the substance and not the Form Essentially, though it was a Joint Venture, it was converted into assessee's venture. The Other Venturer withdrew and the entire work was executed by the assessee though in the name of Joint Venture. The Joint Venture is nothing but the venture of the assessee company and the other person not being a party after withdrawing the question of Joint Venture does not arise. The Venture was fully carried out by the assessee and it was entirely executed by the assessee company. Taking the substance of the transaction, the assessee are entitled to all the profits in respect of the contract executed by them, hence the assessee would certainly be entitled to deduction under the provisions of 80IA as they have fulfilled all the other conditions

Special Bench: Whether prior to insertion of second proviso to Section 92C(2), the benefit of 5% tolerance margin as prescribed under proviso to Section 92C(2) of the IT Act, 1961 for the purposes of determining the arm’s length price of an international transaction is allowable as a standard deduction in all cases, or is allowable only if the difference is less than 5%?

whether the DRP is empowered to modify the TPO’s order to the prejudice of the assessee when the objections have been taken against the draft order in terms of section 144C(2) of the Act. The stand of the assessee is that when it approaches the DRP for seeking some relief against the proposed TP adjustments, the authority can only grant some relief, if permissible, but has no power to make enhancement.

Special Bench: Whether insertion of Explanation to section 9 by way of amendment by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 01-06-1976, changes the position of law, as far as the assessee is concerned?

(a) Whether the TPO on facts was justified to treat the indenting activity at par with the trading activity ; - (b) If the answer to the query posed in (a) is “yes” then were the margins earned in the trading activity by the assesssee with non AEs correctly applied to the indenting activity with AEs ; - (c) If the answer to the query posed in (b) is “yes” then would the ‘costs’ referred to in Rule 10B (1) (e) (i) be the FOB value of goods on the facts of the present case or would it be the operating cost of the assessee; - (d) if the answer posed to the query in (a) is “no” then is there any justification on facts in applying the margins earned in the trading activity to the profits of indenting activity for working out the Arm’s Length Price.

the bona fides of the assessee’ s conduct are exhibited by the payment of TDS soon after the default stood brought to its notice by its tax auditor, per the auditor’s report which forms part of its return. The same would weigh in favour of the assessee, so as to constitute a reasonable explanation in terms of Explanation (1B) to section 271(1)(c), saving penalty.