Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., K.S.P. RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
Coca Cola India INC – Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others – Respondents
S.L.P. (C) No. 646 of 2009
Decided On : 25-10-2010
ORDER :
1. The issue in this special leave petition concerns the application of the principle of Transfer Pricing. In the case of assessee herein, Notice was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] for some of the Assessment Years. On the question of jurisdiction, a writ petition was filed by the assessee, which Rs. 2/- has been disposed of by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction.
2. However, on going through the papers, we find that foundational facts are required to be established which could not have been done by way of writ petition. For the afore-stated reasons, we are of the view that the assessee should be relegated to adopt proceedings, which are pending, as of date, before various Authorities under the Act. Enclosed herewith is the chart indicating the proceedings which are pending before various Authorities under the Act.
3. We, accordingly, direct these Authorities to expeditiously hear and dispose of pending proceedings as early as possible. If the petitioner-assessee herein is aggrieved by the orders passed by any of these Authorities, it will have to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Act. We make it clear that each of the Authorities will decide the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned judgment.
4. Accordingly, the special leave petition stands disposed of.
5. Stay order granted by this Court stands vacated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
