“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

Ness Digital Engineering (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/NFAC Delahi, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 825/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234CSection 270ASection 274Section 92C

total income of the Appellant on the premise that the international transaction of recovery of reimbursement of expenses paid by Associated Enterprise (AE) to Appellant were not at arm's length; Reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer 4. erred in referring the Appellant's case to the Learned Transfer ... learned DRP’s directions is pertaining to transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 83,72,844 in respect of reimbursement of expenses received from associated enterprises. Further, the learned Representatives fairly agreed that this issue is covered by decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

addition to the income of the Appellant a sum of Rs. 3,03,28,016/- being adjustment in respect of Interest on Loan to Associated Enterprise applying LIBOR rate in the financial year in which loan was granted plus 5% as ALP for interest on Loan borrowed ... augment the growth of business operations. The financial guarantees so extended by the assessee were against borrowing facilities availed by each of the associated enterprises from the lending financial institutions. The assessee on conservative basis made the suo moto adjustment of 1% on guarantee given. During the transfer pricing assessment

Thyssenkrupp Idustrial Solutions (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purpose as per above terms

ITA 1957/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Thyssenkrupp Industrial V. Dcit – Range – 15(3)(1) Solutions (India) Private Limited Room No. 451, 4Th Floor {Formerly Known As Uhde India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Private Limited} Mumbai - 400020 Uhde House, L.B.S. Marg Vikhroli (W), Mumbai - 400083 Pan: Aaacu1416H Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri M.M. Golvala & Shri H. Jamshedji Revenue Represented By : Shri Samual Pitta

Section 144CSection 234BSection 234D

under consideration, assessee reimbursed expenditures in the nature of salary, software expenses, telephone, travel, insurance, courier charges, training expenses, accommodation other expenses to the associated enterprise for the cost incurred on behalf of the assessee. Such reimbursement was made by the assessee without paying any markup on the cost ... assessee. We find that during the course of transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the details of reimbursement paid to the associated enterprises. We find that in respect of the salary expenditure the assessee furnished the certificate issued by the statutory auditor, wherein it was certified that the cost

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 184/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, DR

Section 234ASection 35(1)(i)

erred in considering outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction and imputing interest on delayed receipts from Associated Enterprises by considering it as unsecured loans. 19 Without prejudice to Ground 19, the TPO and DRP has erred in considering rate of interest on outstanding trade receivables at 6 months LIBOR ... Operating Operating Profit (OP)/ Operating Cost (‘OC’)) earned on sale of nutraceutical Cost (‘OC’)) earned on sale of nutraceutical and other products to Associated Enterprises (“AEs”) with the net operating and other products to Associated Enterprises (“AEs”) with the net operating and other products to Associated Enterprises (“AEs”) with

Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2084/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2084/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Eversendai Construction- V. The Dy. Commissioner- Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.1 & 2, The Lords, Corporate Circle-2(1), Block-1, 5Th Floor, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

income amounting to Rs.29,05,634/- on account of non-deduction of TDS for reimbursement of expenses paid by the Appellant to its associated enterprises. 3.2 The DRP grossly erred in issuing directions for enhancement without issuing show cause notice to the Appellant. 3.3 The AO/DRP erred ... August 2009 in Chennai to carry on the business of engineering, design, detailing, steel fabrication, development of residential buildings and commercial complexes. 4. Associated Enterprises & International transactions: The assessee company has various international transactions during the FY 2012-13 with its AE as detailed below: Sl.No. Description of the transactions

Howden Solyvent (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 732/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kripalani (Advocate) &For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar- CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 43B

Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai (DRP) u/s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 19-11-2014. The assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) which were subjected to determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) before Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-IV, Chennai (TPO) vide order dated ... Adjustment on Management Charges 4.1 One of the international transactions carried out by the assessee was payment of Rs.898.30 Lacs to its Associated Enterprises (AE) M/s Flakt Woods Group AG, Switzerland. The same was pursuant to a management service agreement dated 15.12.2002 under which the assessee was to receive services

Dy CIT, CC-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 126/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Section 92A(2)(j)

assessee and Biomatrix Marketing Pvt Ltd (Biomatrix, in short), on whose behalf the guarantee was said to be given by the assessee, are associated enterprises. The reasons for coming to this conclusion as recorded in the reasons for reopening the assessment, are as follows: The relationship between the assessee company ... provision of Transfer Pricing which is as under:- "92A(2) for the purpose of sub-section (1) two enterprises shall be deemed to be associated enterprises if, at any time during the previous year. (j) "Where one enterprise is controlled by an individual, the other enterprise is also controlled

Dy CIT, CC-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 125/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 92A(2)(j)

DCIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3574/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

erred in not excluding income from exchange houses maintained in UAE and Oman aggregating to Rs 12.40 crore overlooking the fact said exchanges constituted associated enterprises within the Article 7 read with Article 9 of the respective DTAA with India according to which said income is not exigible

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3476/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

Aker Powergas P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2213/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 92C

length price ('ALP’) of the international transaction pertaining to payment of management charges ("Area Management Cost / Corporate Management Cost") made to the associated enterprise ("AE") at NIL. 1.2 The learned DCIT / DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that though APA signed between the appellant and CBDT pertains to subsequent ... price ("CUP") method as most appropriate method without using any comparable uncontrolled transaction for benchmarking the transaction of payment of management charge to its associate enterprise ("AE"). Further, in the absence of comparable uncontrolled transaction, the learned DCIT / DRP has erred in determining the arm's length price

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

Tribunal did not err in holding that the loss suffered by the assessee by allowing excess period of credit to the associated enterprises without charging an interest during such credit period would not amount to international transaction whereas section 92B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 refers

Keller Ground Engineering India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arms Length Price of the International transactions entered into by the assessee company with the Associated Enterprises; after obtaining the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Transfer Pricing officer vide an order dated 28.01.2016 u/s.92CA(3) in F.No ... transferred to Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai. In this case, the AO noticed that the assessee has entered into international transaction with its Associated Enterprises exceeding Rs.15 crores. Therefore, as per the Board’s circular / notification, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer and the TPO has passed

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventurus Knowledge Soltions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 2403/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabci 5573 J Co No. 249/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 2403/Mum/2018 For A.Y. 2011–12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Sc Tiwari/ Ms Umamagswari M, Ars Revenue By : Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri SC Tiwari/For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92C

database financial results holding that (profit level indicator)PLI of operating profit to operating cost of the comparable companies in 8.73% and whereas the Associated Enterprises is remunerated at cost plus 7% and thereby stated that its international transaction availing marketing support services from its Associated Enterprises ... audit, the margin comparable were taken for one year having arithmetic mean of 10.74%. 07. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the foreign Associated Enterprises as a tested party and directed the assessee to show the benchmarking comparability analysis considering the assessee as a tested party. Assessee was also asked

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

provisions of Sec.92-A of the Act, the Assessee IT(TP)A No.460/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 18 and its wholly owned holding company were Associated Enterprises ("AEs"). In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing SWD Services was an “international transaction” i.e., a transaction between ... more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises

Medreich Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

erred in making an addition of Rs. 25,80,266 on account of corporate guarantee fees received from its Associated Enterprise (`AE'). 3.2 The learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP erred in considering the transaction of corporate guarantee as an international transaction under section ... follow: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical formulations. The assessee has a 100% subsidiary / Associate Enterprise (AE) in United Kingdom by the name Medreich PLC, UK (Medreich PLC). The Medreich PLC is engaged in the marketing abroad the products manufactured

Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 350/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computation of arm’s length price (ALP) with regard to the international transactions of the assessee with its Associated Enterprise (AE). The TPO passed an order u/s. 92CA dated 23.10.2019 determining the total adjustment of Rs.39,73,04,165 which was subsequently rectified to Rs.38 ... Tribunal did not err in holding that the loss suffered by the assessee by allowing excess period of credit to the associated enterprises without charging an interest during such credit period would not amount to international transaction whereas section 92B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 refers

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

applicable. (d) in not restricting the TP adjustment to AE transactions only and thereby making an adjustment in respect of transactions with non-associated enterprises also. 6. The lower income tax authorities have erred in law and on facts by gathering information from various companies under section ... 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

Parexel International Clinical Research Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 189/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Parexel International Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd., Cowrks, Rmz The Assistant Ecoworld, Ground Commissioner Of Floor, Bay Area- Income Tax, Adjacent To Building Circle 5(1)(2), 6A, Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aadcp9318C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandini Shah, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 26/03/2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Chandini Shah, CA

Section 92C

Limited (herein after referred to as 'assessee' or 'Parexel India') is engaged in the business of facilitating and coordinating clinical trial services for its Associated Enterprises (AE). 2.2. During the year under consideration, the assessee has earned a margin of 13.89% on cost (excluding pass through Page ... 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

Pgs Premiere Conferencing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 622/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions undertaken by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AEs), in accordance with the CBDT Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10.03.2016. Accordingly, notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act was issued directing the assessee to explain