← 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

M/S. Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for both the years under consideration filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 458/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 902/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, “Phoenix”- The Deputy Magnificia, Vijanapura, Commissioner Of Mahadevapura Ward, Income Tax, Old Madras Road, Circle 7 (1)(1), Dooravaninagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 458/Bang/2017 (By Assessee) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 27.01.2016 For A.Y. 2011-12 & 26.12.2016 For A.Y. 2012-13 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Main Issue In These Two Appeals Is Regarding The Characterisation Carried Out By The Ld.Tpo Of The Assessee’S Business.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

made u/s. 92CA to the arms length price determined by the taxpayer in respect of the identical international transactions entered into with the associated enterprises. Page 3 of 6 IT(TP)A No. 902/Bang/2016 & IT(TP)A No. 458/Bang/2017 It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the DRP even after

M/S Talisma Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for both the years under consideration filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 902/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 902/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, “Phoenix”- The Deputy Magnificia, Vijanapura, Commissioner Of Mahadevapura Ward, Income Tax, Old Madras Road, Circle 7 (1)(1), Dooravaninagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 458/Bang/2017 (By Assessee) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 27.01.2016 For A.Y. 2011-12 & 26.12.2016 For A.Y. 2012-13 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Main Issue In These Two Appeals Is Regarding The Characterisation Carried Out By The Ld.Tpo Of The Assessee’S Business.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

made u/s. 92CA to the arms length price determined by the taxpayer in respect of the identical international transactions entered into with the associated enterprises. Page 3 of 6 IT(TP)A No. 902/Bang/2016 & IT(TP)A No. 458/Bang/2017 It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the DRP even after

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

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

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

have been held in favour of the Appellant. 4. Disallowance under section 40(a) of the Act in respect of payments to non-resident Associated Enterprises (`AEs') and Non-AEs. 4.1. The NeAC and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in disallowing payments made ... company, engaged in the business of trading, leasing and financing of computer hardware, maintenance of computer equipments and export of software services to associated enterprises. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that all the issues raised in the present appeals are covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench of this

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 4, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1016/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Appellant has submitted evidence in support of expenditure claimed. 5. Disallowance under section 40(a) of the Act in respect of payments to Associated Enterprises 5.1. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in disallowing payments made by the Appellant ... Associated Enterprises ('AEs') amounting to INR 639,80,49,228 under section 40(a) since the same does not represent income chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. 5.2. The learned ACIT and the Hon`ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in placing reliance

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 625/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Appellant has submitted evidence in support of expenditure claimed. 5. Disallowance under section 40(a) of the Act in respect of payments to Associated Enterprises 5.1. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in disallowing payments made by the Appellant ... Associated Enterprises ('AEs') amounting to INR 639,80,49,228 under section 40(a) since the same does not represent income chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. 5.2. The learned ACIT and the Hon`ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in placing reliance

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1364/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1 V. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area Bangalore. Bidadi, Ramangara District – 562 109. Pan : Aabct5590Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Assessing Officer. The It(T)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arises Out Of A.O’S Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, (Order Dated 29.07.2016). The It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 Arises Out Of The A.O.’S Order Passed U/S 154 (Order Dated 31.01.2011). The A.O. After Passing The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Passed Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Giving Effect To The Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In Determining The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment From Rs.37,24,00,000, To Rs.39,13,10,000, Hence Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.1714/B/2016 & 1364/Bang/2017 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited. 2. The Grounds Raised For Both The Appeals Are Identical. The Assessee Has Also Filed Additional Ground Vide Letter Dated 27.11.2021.The Additional Grounds Are Essentially, Shades Of Grounds Raised In Form No.36. The Additional Grounds Are Legal Grounds Supported By Judicial Pronouncements & Does Not Require Examination Of New Facts Other Than On Record. Hence, The Additional Grounds Raised Are Taken On Record For Adjudication. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arising Out Of The Order Of The A.O. Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

matter was referred to the TPO to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions undertaken by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO by his order dated 29.01.2016, determined the adjustment u/s 92CA of the Act at Rs.37.24,00,000 at entity level

M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Ramanagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1714/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1 V. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area Bangalore. Bidadi, Ramangara District – 562 109. Pan : Aabct5590Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Assessing Officer. The It(T)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arises Out Of A.O’S Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, (Order Dated 29.07.2016). The It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 Arises Out Of The A.O.’S Order Passed U/S 154 (Order Dated 31.01.2011). The A.O. After Passing The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Passed Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Giving Effect To The Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In Determining The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment From Rs.37,24,00,000, To Rs.39,13,10,000, Hence Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.1714/B/2016 & 1364/Bang/2017 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited. 2. The Grounds Raised For Both The Appeals Are Identical. The Assessee Has Also Filed Additional Ground Vide Letter Dated 27.11.2021.The Additional Grounds Are Essentially, Shades Of Grounds Raised In Form No.36. The Additional Grounds Are Legal Grounds Supported By Judicial Pronouncements & Does Not Require Examination Of New Facts Other Than On Record. Hence, The Additional Grounds Raised Are Taken On Record For Adjudication. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arising Out Of The Order Of The A.O. Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

matter was referred to the TPO to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions undertaken by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO by his order dated 29.01.2016, determined the adjustment u/s 92CA of the Act at Rs.37.24,00,000 at entity level