“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

Torrecid India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Torrecid India Private Limited Income Tax Circle-3(3)(1) Flat No. 29,30,31, Gidc, Savli, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 Alidra, Vadodara, Vs. 020 Gujarat-391775 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl4860B Assessee By : Shri. Sagar Sawhney. Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Srar Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Sagar SawhneyFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta SRAR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

wherein the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 99,31,763/- was made on account of computation of arm’s length price of international transaction of import of finished goods rejecting the most appropriate method adopted by the assessee of resale price method, but the transactional net margin method adopted ... dated January 18, 2022, erred in confirming the adjustment of INR 99,31,763 by virtue of computation of arm's length price of international transaction of import of finished goods from AEs vide its impugned order dated February 16, 2022. 2. Rejection of Methodical Transfer Pricing analysis and selection

Ala Chemicals P. Ltd., Palghar vs. Dy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7950/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 3Section 92B

Assessing Officer. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of chemicals and ancillary products. The assessee had entered into international transaction with its Associate Enterprises (AE) and also entered into Specified domestic transactions. Hence, the Assessing Officer referred the matter of determination ... amount mentioned above. 4. The above said addition consisted of addition made in respect of the Specified domestic transaction and also in respect of international transaction. 5. The assessee has filed an additional ground before the Tribunal, wherein it is contended that the adjustment towards Specified domestic transactions should

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security India Pvt.Ltd. the Assessee on account of determination of Arm’s Length Price in respect of an international transaction of rendering of Software Development Services by the Assessee to its Associated Enerprise. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, at the time ... 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 two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are nonresidents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease

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

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

were issued and served upon the assessee. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2016-17, the relevant international transactions that took place between the assessee and its AE was the provision of SWD services by the assessee at a price of Rs.192 ... assessee was compensated on a cost plus mark up basis, and in the TP study maintained by the assessee, the assessee concluded the international transactions as being at arm’s length. On a reference being made by the Assessing Officer, the TPO passed an order dated 29.10.2019 determining the following

M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1695/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 69/2 & 69/3, Commissioner Of Kunigal Road, Income Tax, Jakkasandra, Circle – 6(1)(1), Nelamangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 562 123. Pan: Aabcs7591Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Assessee By Ca : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Revenue By Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20/05/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law. Transfer Pricing - General Grounds 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao & Tpo In: A) Making A Reference For The Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price Of The International Transactions To The Tpo

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain

confirming the action of the AO and TPO in: a) Making a reference for the determination of the Arm's length Price of the international transactions to the TPO IT(TP)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Page 2 without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient ... trading, sub-contracting, installation & commissioning and after sales services for large scale filtration systems and fermentation systems. 2.1 The Ld.AO noted that assessee had international transaction with its Associated Enterprise and therefore a reference was made to the transfer pricing officer for determining the arms length price of the international

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

response to the statutory notices, representatives of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details and documents as called for. As there was international transaction of assessee with its associated enterprises, the appeal was referred to the transfer pricing officer. The Ld.TPO called for economic details of the international ... transaction in form 3CEB. The Ld.TPO issued notice on 05/09/2014. The assessee filed all requisite details. The Ld.TPO examined the international transactions. The Ld.TPO noted that the assessee had entered into following international transactions with its AE. Page 13 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 The Ld.TPO noted that assessee aggregated

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

order dated 20/10/2009 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 26,71,65,693, to the international transactions undertaken by the assessee. In conformity, the AO passed the draft assessment order assessing the total income of the assessee ... broking services to its associated enterprises namely Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Mauritius and Morgan Stanley & Co International Ltd, UK. The assessee benchmarked the aforesaid international transaction entered into with its associated enterprises by considering Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method with PLI of operating profit to total

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd., Mumbai-400021

ITA 1172/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, D.R

Section 92C

these appeals is into the business of manufacturing of high pressure seamless gas cylinder services and compressed natural gas cylinders. On the basis of international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associate Enterprise (AE), the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed adjustment of Rs.3,02,39,630/-, Rs.2 ... account of corporate guarantee commission for A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 8. During the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 assessee entered into international transactions with its AE and one such transaction giving corporate guarantee for loans availed off by its AEs viz. EKC China

ACIT Cir 3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1793/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, D.R

Section 92C

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3317/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) / the TPO) erred in making an adjustment of Rs.40,00,000/- to the value of international transactions being import of goods from AE. 2.2 The CIT(A) TPO erred in not considering customs valuation of imported goods ... erred in law and on facts in making adjustment of INR 128,58,880/- in respect of international transactions of the Appellant u/s 92CA(3) read with section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The CIT(A) /TPO ought to have appreciated that the amount

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3316/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3315/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Infinity Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2297/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Appellant 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 ... Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The TPO, vide order, dated 22.01.2013 passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, proposed transfer pricing adjustment aggregating to INR 59,90,822/- consisting of the following: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (INR) 1 Reimbursement of Out of Pocket Expenses

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 322/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

course of assessment proceedings, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The TPO passed an order dated 29.01.2021 u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act. The TP adjustment proposed ... adjustment on interest on outstanding receivables, the objections of the assessee was rejected and the TPO’s order benchmarking the same as a separate international transaction was upheld by the DRP (refer page 66 of the DRP’s order). On the corporate tax front, the disallowance

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

learned TPO") and the Hon'ble DRP grossly erred in adjusting the transfer price by INR 271,48,94,872/- with respect to the international transaction rendered by the Appellant under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 3. The learned AO/ learned ... external CUT search performed by The f. Appellant which is provided as a supplementary analysis to demonstrate the arm's length nature of the international transaction pertaining to payment of royalty. g. Erred in disregarding the internal CUT search performed by the Appellant which is provided as a supplementary analysis

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

referred to the 2 IT(TP)A No.3091/Bang/2018 M/s.United Spirits Limited. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee. The TPO passed order dated 26.10.2017 u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act, determining the TP adjustment at Rs.1004 ... argued at length on the following points. (i) No TP adjustment can be made in the absence of any income arising from the international transactions i.e., concept of real income. (ii) Interest free loans was given for the purpose of acquisition of business overseas. Hence, no TP adjustment

M/S. Tricom Infotech Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3) (1), `Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Tricom Infotech Solutions Ltd 2Nd Floor, Tricom House, Dcit 3(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Gandhi Estate, Andheri Kurla Vs. Road, Safed Pool, Andheri Road, Mumbai- 400 020 (E) Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg8618E Assessee By : Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala. Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

filed its return of income on 30 November 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,74,42,014/–. 04. As assessee has entered international transaction of business process outsourcing payments of ₹ 56,672568/–, provision of IT enabled service income of ₹ 187,175,972/– and commission paid on sales ... Sale of software is not an international Transaction. As these international transactions were to be benchmarked at Arm’s length, Ld. assessing officer made a reference to The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing – 4 (2) (2), Mumbai [ the ld. TPO] for verification of ALP. 05. Assessee benchmarked these

Triumph International (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 935/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 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)

r.w.s. 92CA(4) r.w.s.144C pursuant to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai [DRP] dated 22-12- 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-III, Chennai ... aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds: TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS 2. Adjustment of Rs.34,483,111 to the value of international transaction of sales made to Associated Enterprises (AE) 2.1 The TPO's recommendation/computation in pursuance of DRP directions and the consequential final assessment order passed

Triumph International (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 987/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

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)