·
Dana Corporation., AAR
No. 788 of 2008 reported in 30th November, 2009
Para
8 and 8.1 of the Ruling
“Section
92 is not an independent charging provision. The expression ‘income arising’ in
the opening words of section92 postulates that income has arisen under the
substantive charging provisions of the Act. If by application of the provisions
of section 45 read with section 48, which are integrally connected one with the
other, income cannot be said to arise, section 92 does not come to the aid of
the Revenue even though it is an international transaction. Section 92
obviously is not intended to bring in a new head of income or to charge tax on
income which is not otherwise chargeable under the Act.”
·
Amiantit International
Holding Ltd., AAR No. 879 of 2009 reported in February 23,2010
wherein it was held that in a case where income was
not chargeable at all transfer pricing provisions of section 92-B(i) of the IT
Act would not apply.
Disclaimer:
The view expressed above posted here for
knowledge sharing purpose without any commercial aspect. Professional opinion
must be sought before entering into any similar transactions mentioned above.
Author shall not be held liable for loss of any kind arising from
the exercise of information contained in it.
