← 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

The Supreme Industrial Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7598/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Acit Ltu, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Cit- Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 197Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

stated, the facts of the case are that, the AO had noted that the assessee had entered into both International & Specific domestic transactions with Associated Enterprises (AE’s) and therefore made a reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Act to the TPO for determination of the Arm’s Length Price

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7493/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

Transfer Pricing adjustments. He contended that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had entered into international transactios with overseas Associated Enterprises (AEs) in respect of; purchase of stores and spares, purchase of lifts and escalators, professional fees and reimbursement of expenses. The assessee selected Transactional

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7492/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

Transfer Pricing adjustments. He contended that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had entered into international transactios with overseas Associated Enterprises (AEs) in respect of; purchase of stores and spares, purchase of lifts and escalators, professional fees and reimbursement of expenses. The assessee selected Transactional

DCIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2077/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

capital (3) without providing reasons as to which conditions of section 92C (3) had not been satisfied. Financial guarantees given on behalf of the associated enterprises 11. The AO/TPO erred in holding that the financial guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises pg. 4 constituted ... rates of guarantee commission of 1.15% per annum adopted by the appellant for benchmarking the financial guarantees given by it on behalf of its associated enterprises. 13. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in holding that the arm‟s-length price of the financial guarantee given by the appellant on behalf

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1597/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

capital (3) without providing reasons as to which conditions of section 92C (3) had not been satisfied. Financial guarantees given on behalf of the associated enterprises 11. The AO/TPO erred in holding that the financial guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises pg. 4 constituted ... rates of guarantee commission of 1.15% per annum adopted by the appellant for benchmarking the financial guarantees given by it on behalf of its associated enterprises. 13. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in holding that the arm‟s-length price of the financial guarantee given by the appellant on behalf

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

capital (3) without providing reasons as to which conditions of section 92C (3) had not been satisfied. Financial guarantees given on behalf of the associated enterprises 11. The AO/TPO erred in holding that the financial guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises pg. 4 constituted ... rates of guarantee commission of 1.15% per annum adopted by the appellant for benchmarking the financial guarantees given by it on behalf of its associated enterprises. 13. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in holding that the arm‟s-length price of the financial guarantee given by the appellant on behalf

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3272/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

92CA(3) without providing reasons as to which condition of Section 92C(3) had not been satisfied. Financial Guarantees given on behalf of the Associated Enterprise 12) The AO TPO erred in rejecting the arithmetic mean of internal comparable rates of guarantee commission of 0.60% per annum adopted ... 3272/Mum/2015 & 1656/Mum/2014 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.; A.Y. 09-10 Appellant for benchmarking the financial guarantees given by it on behalf of its Associated Enterprise. 13) The AO/ TPO erred in holding that the arm's length price of the financial guarantees given by the Appellant on behalf

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

capital (3) without providing reasons as to which conditions of section 92C (3) had not been satisfied. Financial guarantees given on behalf of the associated enterprises 11. The AO/TPO erred in holding that the financial guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises pg. 4 constituted ... rates of guarantee commission of 1.15% per annum adopted by the appellant for benchmarking the financial guarantees given by it on behalf of its associated enterprises. 13. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in holding that the arm‟s-length price of the financial guarantee given by the appellant on behalf

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1656/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

92CA(3) without providing reasons as to which condition of Section 92C(3) had not been satisfied. Financial Guarantees given on behalf of the Associated Enterprise 12) The AO TPO erred in rejecting the arithmetic mean of internal comparable rates of guarantee commission of 0.60% per annum adopted ... 3272/Mum/2015 & 1656/Mum/2014 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.; A.Y. 09-10 Appellant for benchmarking the financial guarantees given by it on behalf of its Associated Enterprise. 13) The AO/ TPO erred in holding that the arm's length price of the financial guarantees given by the Appellant on behalf

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Calyon Bank, Mumbai

ITA 4259/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

OECD Report for use of controlled transactions. The TPO observed “ that evidence from enterprises may be useful in understanding the transactions with Associated Enterprises may be useful in understanding eh transaction under review or as pointer to further investigations”. However, we find that the TPO did not carry ... under: "14. What is an 'uncontrolled transaction' has been clearly defined under Rule 10A(a) to mean 'a transaction between enterprises other than associated enterprises whether resident or nonresident'. A plain reading of the meaning given to the expression 'uncontrolled transaction1 leaves no room for any doubt that

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3103/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

OECD Report for use of controlled transactions. The TPO observed “ that evidence from enterprises may be useful in understanding the transactions with Associated Enterprises may be useful in understanding eh transaction under review or as pointer to further investigations”. However, we find that the TPO did not carry ... under: "14. What is an 'uncontrolled transaction' has been clearly defined under Rule 10A(a) to mean 'a transaction between enterprises other than associated enterprises whether resident or nonresident'. A plain reading of the meaning given to the expression 'uncontrolled transaction1 leaves no room for any doubt that

Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporation & Investments Bank, Mumbai

ITA 1868/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

OECD Report for use of controlled transactions. The TPO observed “ that evidence from enterprises may be useful in understanding the transactions with Associated Enterprises may be useful in understanding eh transaction under review or as pointer to further investigations”. However, we find that the TPO did not carry ... under: "14. What is an 'uncontrolled transaction' has been clearly defined under Rule 10A(a) to mean 'a transaction between enterprises other than associated enterprises whether resident or nonresident'. A plain reading of the meaning given to the expression 'uncontrolled transaction1 leaves no room for any doubt that