← All Phrases

“associated enterprises”

Transfer PricingSection 92ASection 92A2,081 judgments

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

Leading authorities on associated enterprises

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 enterprises

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee has entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) and therefore, a reference was made under Section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the determination of Arm's Length Price

ACIT Circle 13(1), New Delhi vs. Lx Pantos India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 912/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

other information applicable to and from China and to and from India. * AO contended that Pantos India is availing advisory services from its associated enterprises and overseas entities which are duly covered under the definition of consultancy under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under DTAA as well

ACIT Circle 13(1), New Delhi vs. Lx Pantos India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 911/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

other information applicable to and from China and to and from India. * AO contended that Pantos India is availing advisory services from its associated enterprises and overseas entities which are duly covered under the definition of consultancy under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and under DTAA as well

Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 372/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

authorities below erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2,03,38,414/- to the international transactions of the appellant with its Associated Enterprises relating to the purchase of raw materials and consumables/finished goods and sale of finished goods. Ground 10(a): That on the facts ... authorities below erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,51,93,955/- to the international transactions of the appellant with its Associated Enterprises relating to the purchase of raw materials and consumables/finished goods and sale of finished goods. Ground 11(a): That on the facts

Primetals Technologies India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 371/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

authorities below erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2,03,38,414/- to the international transactions of the appellant with its Associated Enterprises relating to the purchase of raw materials and consumables/finished goods and sale of finished goods. Ground 10(a): That on the facts ... authorities below erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,51,93,955/- to the international transactions of the appellant with its Associated Enterprises relating to the purchase of raw materials and consumables/finished goods and sale of finished goods. Ground 11(a): That on the facts

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Bmtc Building, Koramangala

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 25oSection 270ASection 37Section 92C

representative of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed the details as called for. The Ld.AO noted that assessee had international transaction with its associated enterprise and accordingly a reference was made to the transfer pricing officer to compute the arms length price. On receipt of the reference u/s. 92CA ... passed the order u/s. 92CA(3) with no adverse inference in respect of the international transactions entered into between the assessee and the associated enterprises. Page 4 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO issued 142(1) notice on 27/08/21 to verify the ESOP expenses claimed

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2128/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 35

account of determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction of advancing loan/advance and receivables to the Associated Enterprises (AEs). The adjustment of Rs.1,08,78,100/- was in respect of interest rate i.e. 3.71% to total sales to AE for 19 days excess credit period

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1787/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 35

account of determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction of advancing loan/advance and receivables to the Associated Enterprises (AEs). The adjustment of Rs.1,08,78,100/- was in respect of interest rate i.e. 3.71% to total sales to AE for 19 days excess credit period

Kennametal India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 506/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

machine tools. 3.1 During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2017-18, the Assessee entered into certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’). Upon a reference being made by the Assessing Officer to the TPO, the TPO vide an order dated 25.01.2021 determined an adjustment ... having regard to the arm's length price". 45. Section 92B defines the term "international transaction" to mean "a transaction between two or more associated enterprises …..” . 46. A conjoint reading of section 92 with section 92B clearly brings out that computation of income at ALP is permissible only in respect

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 642/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234B

international transaction of payment for services rendered to the international transaction of payment for services rendered to the Appellant by its Appellant by its associated enterprise as NIL. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the On the facts and circumstances of the case ... international transaction of payment for the arm's length price of the international transaction of payment for services rendered to the Appellant by its associated enterprises as NIL rendered to the Appellant by its associated enterprises as NIL rendered to the Appellant by its associated enterprises

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jtdy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2471/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234B

international transaction of payment for services rendered to the international transaction of payment for services rendered to the Appellant by its Appellant by its associated enterprise as NIL. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the On the facts and circumstances of the case ... international transaction of payment for the arm's length price of the international transaction of payment for services rendered to the Appellant by its associated enterprises as NIL rendered to the Appellant by its associated enterprises as NIL rendered to the Appellant by its associated enterprises

R A K Ceremics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 61/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 R.A.K. Ceramics India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, P.O Box No.11, Circle 3(1), Adb Road, Samalkot, Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh. Pin – 53340, Pan : Aaccr6424N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aliasagar Rampurwala, C.A. Revenue By: B. Balakrishna – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2014-15 Arises From The Assessment Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 28.11.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

For Appellant: Shri Aliasagar Rampurwala, C.AFor Respondent: B. Balakrishna – CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 271BSection 92C

adjustment of INR 3,33,61,422 to the international transactions pertaining to purchase of raw materials / finished goods by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO / Ld. TPO / Hon'ble Panel has erred ... Which,- i. the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having regard

Th Boston Consulting Group (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1401/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – Circle - 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Shri Pratik Shah & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Udoal Raj Singh

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)

assessee does not avail of management Page No. 5 The Boston Consulting Group (India) Private Limited consultancy services or third parities other than its associated enterprises and the assessee has rendered similar services to unrelated parties in India and outside India. Based on this internal comparables were available

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

party for the purpose of undertaking benchmarking analysis. 3.3 That the assessing officer/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the associated enterprises being the simpler of the transacting entities ought to have been selected as the tested party. 3.4 That the assessing officer / TPO erred ... entity. The assessee as per its Transfer Pricing Study Report did not separately benchmark the SDTs entered into by the eligible units with the Associated Enterprises (AEs) of the assessee. The Assessee conducted entity level comparison of OP/OR of the assessee-company (combining all units) as a whole and compared

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gemalto Digital Security Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2191/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumardcit Vs. Gemalto Digital Security Circle – 10(1) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, A Wing New Delhi Berjaya House, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065 Pan No. Aabcs 5455 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv. S/Shri Sushil Kumar & Shri Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Kumar Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar:

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

subsidiary of Gemalto NV, Netherlands supplying smart cards in India. The product range included smart cards, terminals and payphones, which were imported from various Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’) of GDSPL and subsequently resold in the Indian Market. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2002 declaring loss of Rs.10

Air Works India (Engineering) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed on merits

ITA 4315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 90BSection 92B

interest free working capital loans to the AE. Under section 92B of the Act, the international transaction means a transaction between 2 or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are nonresidents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services ... bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between 2 or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service

Air Works India (Engineering) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed on merits

ITA 4314/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 90BSection 92B

interest free working capital loans to the AE. Under section 92B of the Act, the international transaction means a transaction between 2 or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are nonresidents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services ... bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between 2 or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service

Siemens Technology and Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Siemens Technology & Services Dy. Cit 8(2)(1) Private Limited Mumbai Plot No. 2, Sector 2, Kharghar, Vs. Node, Navi Mumbai- 410 210

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 3Section 92C

provision of business support services (BSS) precisely to state that it is engaged in the business of providing software development services to its associated enterprises (AEs) in its IT segment by both onsite and offshore software process acting as system integrated and total solution provider and providing software development services

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 4786/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

services to the Indian branch of the Assessee and the balance of 50 per cent of time was spent rendering services to the overseas associated enterprise ("AE') of the Assessee. The salary paid to Ashok Bhatia has following three components: Sr Particula Amount Deduction Remarks No rs claimed ... main transaction. 69. Without prejudice to the above, Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no international transaction identified by the Ld. TPO, no Associated Enterprises identified by the Ld. TPO, no search process identified by the Ld. TPO, and no comparable identified by the Ld. TPO. Hence, the Assessee contends

The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Range -3, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 4765/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

services to the Indian branch of the Assessee and the balance of 50 per cent of time was spent rendering services to the overseas associated enterprise ("AE') of the Assessee. The salary paid to Ashok Bhatia has following three components: Sr Particula Amount Deduction Remarks No rs claimed ... main transaction. 69. Without prejudice to the above, Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no international transaction identified by the Ld. TPO, no Associated Enterprises identified by the Ld. TPO, no search process identified by the Ld. TPO, and no comparable identified by the Ld. TPO. Hence, the Assessee contends