← 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

Dhl Logistics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

For Appellant: Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/For Respondent: Jayant B Jhaveri
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92CSection 92D

specialised freight handling services. It is an indirect subsidiary of Deutsche Post AG (DPAG), the ultimate payment company of DLPL. The DLPL and its associated enterprises (AE’s) in the DHL network of companies may be characterised as freight handling companies with normal risk operating in the international logistics business ... crores or more was made in the earlier years and during this year the assesse had also entered into large international transactions with the associated enterprises. Therefore, the Transfer Pricing Officer i.e Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1 (2)(2), Mumbai vide order u/s 92CA(3) dated

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd ( Formerly Knowna S Mahindra British Telecom Ltd), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2041/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit-2(3) Vs. M/S. Tech Mahindra Ltd. R.No. 555, Aaykar (Formerly Known As Bhavan, Mahindra British Mumbai-400020 Telecome Ltd.) Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacm3484F Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Tech Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Dcit-2(3) (Formerly Known As Mahindra R.No. 555, Aaykar British Telecome Ltd.) Bhavan, Gateway Building, Apollo Mumbai-400020 Bunder Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacm3484F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Jahangir D. Mistri &For Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal
Section 10ASection 92C

miscellaneous application vide MA No. 327/Mum/2022 on the issue of transfer pricing adjustment with respect of charging interest for extended credit period to the associated enterprises of the assessee and on the issue relating to claim of deduction u/s 10A of the act. The assessee submitted that in respect ... learned CIT(A) having accepted the submissions of the Appellant for not charging interest while extending credit to its USA-Associated Enterprise for payment of sale consideration by the AE, ought to have desisted from partially confirming the adjustment to total income made by the AO-TPO and ought

Tech Mahindra Ltd ( Formerly Known As Mahindra British Telecom Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1035/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit-2(3) Vs. M/S. Tech Mahindra Ltd. R.No. 555, Aaykar (Formerly Known As Bhavan, Mahindra British Mumbai-400020 Telecome Ltd.) Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacm3484F Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Tech Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Dcit-2(3) (Formerly Known As Mahindra R.No. 555, Aaykar British Telecome Ltd.) Bhavan, Gateway Building, Apollo Mumbai-400020 Bunder Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacm3484F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Jahangir D. Mistri &For Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal
Section 10ASection 92C

miscellaneous application vide MA No. 327/Mum/2022 on the issue of transfer pricing adjustment with respect of charging interest for extended credit period to the associated enterprises of the assessee and on the issue relating to claim of deduction u/s 10A of the act. The assessee submitted that in respect ... learned CIT(A) having accepted the submissions of the Appellant for not charging interest while extending credit to its USA-Associated Enterprise for payment of sale consideration by the AE, ought to have desisted from partially confirming the adjustment to total income made by the AO-TPO and ought