DST WORLDWIDE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred by benchmarking the adjustment solely on the assessee's AE's terms, as this arrangement lacked uncontrolled transactions. Consequently, the ALP adjustment was directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned an Arm's Length Price (ALP) adjustment for interest on receivables. The adjustment was based on the assessee's service agreements with its Associated Enterprise (AE) which stipulated a thirty-day credit period.
What were the issues?
Whether the ALP adjustment for interest on receivables was sustainable when based solely on the Associated Enterprise's credit period, and if such an arrangement constitutes an uncontrolled transaction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sabic Innovative Plastic India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT10 citing59 SOT 138 · 2013 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Assessment Year: 2013-14 DST Worldwide Services Assistant Commissioner of India Private Limited, Vs Income Tax, HYDERABAD Circle-17(1), [PAN: AAACI7097L] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kiresh Shivkar, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 28-09-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises against the ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad’s assessment, dated 28-09-2017 framed in furtherance to the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’)- 1, Bengaluru’s directions dt.22-08-2017 in F.No.291/DRP-1/ BNG/2016-17, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.92CA(3) and 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from four days’ delay stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond his control as per condonation petition/affidavit. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore.
We notice at the outset that there is hardly any need for us to delve much deeper so far as the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging Arm’s Length Price (ALP) adjustment pertaining to interest on receivables of Rs.16,82,292/-; is concerned. We make it clear first of all that such interest on receivables indeed forms an international transaction as per Section 92B explanation (c) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01-04-2002. The fact however remains that the Transfer Pricing Officer’s (TPO’s) order herein dt.30-09-2016 in para 7.5 page 4 has proposed impugned adjustment as per the assessee’s service agreements with its Associated Enterprise (AE) only stipulating thirty days credit period from the date of invoice. It is therefore clear that the learned lower authorities have adopted the assessee’s AE’s only as a benchmarking comparable(s) which is not sustainable in law as per Tehnimont ICB Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 138 ITD 33 (Mum) (TM) and Sabic Innovative Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 59 SOT 138 (Ahd) holding that such an arrangement lacks uncontrolled transaction. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned ALP adjustment of Rs.16,82,292/- for this precise reason alone. All other arguments on merits are rendered infructuous.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
More judgments on Section 92B
- Flora Biochem Private Limited, Coimbatore vs DCIT, CoimbatoreITA 1123/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Satyam Venture Engineering Services Pvt… vs ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), HyderabadITTPA 12/HYD/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Satyam Venture Engineering Services Pvt… vs ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), HyderabadITTPA 11/HYD/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Satyam Venture Engineering Services Pvt… vs ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), HyderabadITTPA 10/HYD/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Satyam Venture Engineering Services Private… vs ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), HyderabadITA 9/HYD/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2011-2012
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026