← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Ms.Phillips Foods India Private Limited, Tuticorin

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

ITA 739/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 739/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 & C.O No.17/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No.739/Chny/2024] The Assistant Phillips Foods India Pvt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Tax, C-75/76, Sipcot Industrial Circle 1, Complex, Tirunelveli Tuticorin Central Stand S.O. Tuticorin – 628 002. Pan: Aabcp 7916Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. K. Amulya, Ca & Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92C

follows: The assessee is a private limited company. It is a captive contract manufacturer in processing and export of crab meat to its Associated Enterprise (AE). For the assessment year 2015-16, return of income was filed on 11.11.2015 disclosing total income of Rs.1.71 crores. The assessment was selected

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

always an inherent risk in providing guarantees and that may be a reason that Finance provides insistence on non-charging any commission from Associated Enterprise as a commercial principle. Further, it has been observed that this position indicates that provision of guarantee always involves risk and there is a service ... provided to the Associate Enterprise in increasing its creditworthiness in obtaining loans in the market, be from financial institutions or from others. There may not be immediate charge on I.I. & L account, but inherent risk cannot be ruled out in providing guarantee. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the adjustments made