← All Phrases

“arms length price”

Transfer PricingSection 92Section 92791 judgments

The decision most relied on for arms length price is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), cited in 422 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on arms length price

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
376 ITR 183 · 2015 · High Court
170
citing judgments

For transfer pricing comparability analysis, companies should not be excluded solely based on higher turnover if they are otherwise functionally comparable, unless the turnover difference reflects fundamental functional dissimilarities, brand value, or risk profiles that materially impact profitability.

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.
430 ITR 298 · 2021 · High Court
132
citing judgments

A corporate guarantee issued to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring adjustments for guarantee commission due to inherent risk. The reasonable arm's length rate for benchmarking such corporate guarantees can be determined using internal or external comparable uncontrolled prices.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT
381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 206 · 2015 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When determining the arm's length price for interest on a foreign currency loan advanced to an Associated Enterprise, the Indian Prime Lending Rate is not applicable. Instead, the interest rate should be benchmarked based on the prevailing foreign currency rate, such as EURIBOR, or the rate in the country where the loan is received/consumed.

Judgments citing arms length price

Progress Software Development Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 391/Hyd/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Progress Software Development Vs. Asstt.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16(2) [Pan : Aadcp4833A] Hyderabad अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A M Sripada & Ca Ashishi Jai राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit( Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 16/07/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 02/02/2014 Passed By The Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”), In The Case Of Progress So"Ware Development Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Originally By Common Order Dated 15/3/2021, A Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal Disposed Of Ita 391/Hyd/ 2015 Also, Allowing The Plea Of The Assessee. However, Subsequently By Order Dated 10/4/2024 In Ma No. 18/Hyd/ 2022 The Said Order In The Appeal Was Recalled Insofar As Ground No. 12 Rela"Ng To The Interest Paid

For Appellant: C.A M Sripada &For Respondent: Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT( DR)

Years 2008-09 Page 2 of 4 and 2009-10 the Revenue accepted the interest rate at 5.14% payable on ECB to be Arms Length Price (“ALP”). 5. In GE India technology Centre private limited (supra), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court observed that where the learned TPO accepted certain

ITO, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Encore It Solutions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 630/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 & C.O No.28/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No.630/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Encore It Solutions Pvt. Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Ltd., Chennai – 600 034. Htc Towers, No.41 Gst Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaace 8044K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shrig. Suresh, Jcit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriG. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

value of international transaction as per books of accounts.” Accordingly, assessee’s case was referred by the AO to TPO for determining the Arms Length Price with reference to all the transactions reported in Form No.3CEB filed along with the return of income for the assessment year ... determined the Arms Length Price of the International transactions entered into by the assessee vide letter dated 31.10.2019 u/s.92CA of the Act and computed ALP at Rs.2,50,08,077/- as under:- “9. In the light of the discussions, the Arm’s Length Price of the International Transactions is determined

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5848/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaaci1747H Vs. The Acit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5935/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aaaci1747H Respondent) Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken Shah, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai Dated 27.06.2017 For

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated