← All Phrases

“international transaction”

Transfer PricingSection 92BSection 92B3,408 judgments

The decision most relied on for international transaction is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (374 ITR 118), cited in 499 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on international transaction

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court
499
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

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.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
368 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
172
citing judgments

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT
24 ITR 506 · 1953 · Supreme Court
156
citing judgments

One cannot make a taxable profit or loss from transactions with oneself, as profit only arises from dealings with external third parties, even when transferring assets between different accounts or divisions of the same entity.

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.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT
381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

Judgments citing international transaction

Lintas India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

ITA 398/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain and SiddheshFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

under the directions of the Hon‟ble DRP erred in not following Hon‟ble DRP directions for previous years in relation to above international transactions, in-spite of there being no change in facts. 8. On fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... public relations etc. to ITA No.398/MUM/2019 & 595/MUM/2022 Lintas India Private Limited.;A.Y. 2014-15,2017-18 its clients. As the assessee has entered into international transactions being part of Lowe worldwide group with its Associated Enterprises as assessee is engaged in providing advertisement services, assessee reported that it has paid

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1)

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO'). 1.1 The Ld. DRP/AO/ TPO erred in re-computing the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction pertaining to receipt of fees for marketing of fixed income products, including interest rate derivative products (collectively known as FID business) by the Appellant from ... necessary either at or before the time of hearing.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transaction pertaining to fees received for marketing of fixed income products. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record

DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ubs Ag, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1347/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO'). 1.1 The Ld. DRP/AO/ TPO erred in re-computing the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction pertaining to receipt of fees for marketing of fixed income products, including interest rate derivative products (collectively known as FID business) by the Appellant from ... necessary either at or before the time of hearing.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transaction pertaining to fees received for marketing of fixed income products. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection by the

ITA 2016/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asst. Cit-6(1)(1) M/S. Exxon Mobile Company India Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Private Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Kalpatru Point, Plot No. 107, Road No. 8, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aaace 3157 H (Revenue) (Assessee) : & C.O. No. 125/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2016/Mum/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Exxon Mobile Company India Asst. Cit-6(1)(1) Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Private Ltd. Kalpatru Point, Plot No. 107, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Road No. 8, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aaace 3157 H (Assessee) : (Revenue) Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla / Adish Shenoy Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla / Adish ShenoyFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Pursuant to this, the final assessment order dated 28.04.2016 was passed by the A.O. by making the addition/disallowance on transfer pricing adjustment on international transaction on provision of back office services, amounting to Rs.90,07,259/- and disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) out of global support service charges amounting

Ramesh Flowers Private Limited, Tuticorin vs. ITO(International Taxation), Tuticorin

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 70/CHNY/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)–Ld. DR
Section 194Section 194LSection 201(1)Section 263

which he cannot possibly perform. In Hughey v. JMS Development[l], (Justice Owens of the United States Court of Appeals) no international transaction can be done rupee currency and only foreign currency can be handled/transacted /performed. Section 3 of FEMA is extracted below: Prohibition to Borrow or Lend: - "Save

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 650/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri M M GolwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

Panel (DRP) erred in holding that the transaction of giving financial guarantee by the Appellant on behalf of its Associated Enterprises (AEs) was an "international transaction" under Section 92B of the Act. 4. The AO/ TPO / DRP erred in determining the Arm's Length Price of the financial guarantees given ... case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Appellant had entered into international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) and therefore, made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computation of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) under Section 92CA

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Hp India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Arun Kumar, Cit(Tp)-2-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 13 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal Dated 22.06.2022. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing, Did Not Raise Any Specific Plea With Regard To Grounds 1 To 5, 10, 12 & 13 (Also Sub-Grounds), Hence, The Same Are Dismissed. The Surviving Grounds, Namely, Grounds 6 To 9, 11 & Its Sub-Grounds, Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Arun Kumar, CIT(TP)-2-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92B

making TP adjustment of INR 1,11,41,19,868 to the returned income of the Assessee by assuming the existence of an alleged international transaction of brand promotion services to AE. AMP expenditure not an international transaction: 6.2 The learned DRP / AO / TPO has erred ... facts by alleging that the unilateral AMP expenditure, being payments made to third parties, is an "international transaction" as per the provisions of Section 92B of the Act. 6.3 The learned DRP / AO / TPO has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that there was no agreement, understanding

Excellence Data Research Private Limited, Hyderabad, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 461/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru (DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 31-10-2016. 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-3, Hyderabad ... Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') and undertaking a fresh economic analysis during the course of assessment proceedings and thereby making an adjustment to the international transactions. Selection of comparable companies 4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP erred in accepting

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 1, Thane

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 971/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. ChandniFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 69CSection 92C

Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer-1(3) (the TPO) erred in making an adjustment of Rs.54,62,391/- in relation to the international transaction of export of finished goods from Thane Plant under Manufacturing segment using Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM'). It is prayed that the learned AO/TPO ... directed to consider the international transaction of the Assessee as arm's length and accordingly the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 54.62,391/- should be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/ the TPO erred in making an adjustment

Rothschild (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1557/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

India Private Limited services in respect of mandates received by the Associated Enterprises (AEs) from third party clients. Since the assessee has entered into international transactions with its AEs, the Assessing Officer referred the matter of determination of arms’ length price (ALP) of international transaction to the Transfer Pricing Officer ... assessee selected five comparable companies, whose main mean PLI was 12.94%. Hence the assessee claimed before the learned TPO that its international transactions are at arms’ length. 3. The TPO did not accept the transfer pricing study conducted by the assessee. He accepted only one comparable companies that was selected

It Expressway Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1040/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru (DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 31-10-2016. 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-3, Hyderabad ... Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') and undertaking a fresh economic analysis during the course of assessment proceedings and thereby making an adjustment to the international transactions. Selection of comparable companies 4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP erred in accepting

Prime Focus Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT OSD-1 RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-appeals for the assessment year 2011–12 are dismissed

ITA 4952/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 250Section 32

reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO‟) to determine the arm’s length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had advanced ... made a reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the TPO to determine the arm’s length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has granted loan

DCIT CC 4(4) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Prime Focus Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-appeals for the assessment year 2011–12 are dismissed

ITA 4936/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 250Section 32

reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO‟) to determine the arm’s length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had advanced ... made a reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the TPO to determine the arm’s length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has granted loan

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD-I), Central Range-7, Mumbai vs. Prime Focus Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-appeals for the assessment year 2011–12 are dismissed

ITA 4926/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 250Section 32

reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO‟) to determine the arm’s length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had advanced ... made a reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the TPO to determine the arm’s length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has granted loan

ACIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merck Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1798/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

satisfy himself about the necessity and requirement of referring the matter for determination of arm‟s length price in respect of the international transaction between the appellant and the AEs and hence, hence the reference by learned AO to the Learned TPO is illegal ... further erred in confirming an addition of ₹ 93,28,708 in respect of international transaction of purchase of raw materials from associated enterprise(„AE‟). (a) Rejection of Appellant’s Most Appropriate Method The learned TPO erred in proposing and the Hon‟ble DRP further erred in confirming the rejection

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1525/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

satisfy himself about the necessity and requirement of referring the matter for determination of arm‟s length price in respect of the international transaction between the appellant and the AEs and hence, hence the reference by learned AO to the Learned TPO is illegal ... further erred in confirming an addition of ₹ 93,28,708 in respect of international transaction of purchase of raw materials from associated enterprise(„AE‟). (a) Rejection of Appellant’s Most Appropriate Method The learned TPO erred in proposing and the Hon‟ble DRP further erred in confirming the rejection

Kontoor Brands India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 214/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.214/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Kontoor Brands India Private The Assistant Commissioner Limited, (Formerly Known As Vf Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1) V. Bangalore. Brands India Private Limited) Awfis, 1St Floor, Shabari Complex Field Marshal Cariappa Road Ashok Nagar, Bangalore North Richmond Town S.O. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccv2727L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Nageswar Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu , Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 02.02.2022 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T.Act. For The Relevant Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As 34 Grounds, But During The Course Of Hearing, The Learned Ar Confined His Argument Only To Ground No.1, Challenging The Legal Issue, Which Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Sri.Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

response to which, the assessee has filed details / documents. From the documents filed by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had undertaken international transactions. Therefore, after obtaining approval from the competent authority, the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) as per section 92CA ... learned TPO passed his order u/s 92CA(3) on 25.01.2021 proposing addition of Rs.25,73,90,940 for international transactions . Thereafter, the A.O.(Assessing Officer) passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) on 31.03.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order passed by the AO on 31.03.2021, the assessee filed

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of proceedings, it was observed that there was International transaction exceeding Rs. 15 crores, the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm's length price. After receipt of reference ... under:- IT(TP)A No.150/B/2017 & 320/B/2019 Page 10 of 110 3.4 Segmental result for trading and manufacturing segment is as under:- 3.5 The following international transactions were carried out by the assessee and the TNMM method was applied by the assessee for computation of PLI. IT(TP)A No.150/B/2017 & 320/B/2019

Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 2976/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (DRP) u/s 144C(5) dated 13-09-2017. 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-2, Chennai ... considering advertisement, marketing and promotion ('AMP') expenditure incurred by the Assessee wholly and exclusively for its domestic business operations within the realm of international transactions, and proposing an adhoc brand promotion fee of 1% amounting to INR 91,26,589, based on their own conjectures and surmises. 2.1 Erred

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbaiq vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismis

ITA 2449/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit-14(1)(1), M/S. Kotak Mahindra Life Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Insurance Company Ltd Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, 12 Bkc, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 051 Pan No. Aaaco3983B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 14A

short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In view of international transactions carried ou view of international transactions carried out by the assessee in t by the assessee in the year under consideration, the matter of determination