← All Phrases

“associated enterprise”

Transfer PricingSection 92ASection 92A2,562 judgments

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

Leading authorities on associated enterprise

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.

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
118 ITR 261 · 1979 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

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.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.
55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court
273
citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd.
36 Taxmann.com 289 · 2013 · High Court
171
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that Infosys Ltd. is not comparable to a captive software development service provider for transfer pricing analysis, given its huge turnover, high profit margins, ownership of intangible intellectual property rights, branded products, and differing risk profile.

DIT v. Morgan Stanley Co. Inc.
399 ITR 34 · 2017 · Supreme Court
162
citing judgments

Once a transfer pricing analysis has been undertaken for an Indian associated enterprise, no further profits are attributable to it as a Permanent Establishment, thereby extinguishing the need for additional profit attribution.

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.

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
114 ITD 448 · 2008 · ITAT
131
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

Judgments citing associated enterprise

Ambattur Clothing Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1957/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1957/Chny/2017 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ambattur Clothing Ltd [Now Demerged & Known As M/S. Ambattur Fashion India Pvt. Ltd.] No.86/E-2, Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai– 600 058. (Pan:Aaaca-4127-D) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Sp Chidambaram, Advocate. Mr. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. 09.07.2025 31.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 21.06.2017 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1) For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed In Compliance To Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (Drp) Vide Order Dated 11.05.2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Readymade Garments To Ae & Non- Ae'S. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Υ.2013-14 On 30.11.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.11,57,20,670/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. A :-2-:

Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,‘□□' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं

Dow Chemical International, Mumbai vs. Addl /Joint/Dy. /Asstt Comm of Income Tax /ITO, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1940/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accou Ntant Member आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1940/Mum/2021 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dow Chemical V/S. The Dcit/Acit, Ward International Private बिाम 14(1)(2), Mumbai Limited The Godrej It Park, P2, 1St Additional/Joint/Deputy Floor, Block B, 02 Lbs /Assistant Commissioner Of Road, Godrej Business Income Tax/Income District Phirojshanagar, Tax Officer, National Vikhroli (W), Mumbai E-Assessment Centre, Delhi 400079 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacd4467B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Hitesh Thakkar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

Private Limited), thus rendering the entire proceedings null and void, liable to be quashed. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS International Transaction - Export of finished goods to associated enterprises ('AEs') General 4. Erred in making an adjustment of INR 1,01,60,644 to the total income of the Appellant under section 92CA