“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

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

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 non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale ... deciding the question referred to the special bench, are as follows: - • Section 92(l) of the Act provides that any income arising from an "international transaction" shall be computed having regard to the arms length price. The Explanation to the said section provides that allowance for any expense or interest

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

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 92B of the Act. 3.3 The learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not demonstrating as to how the transaction ... failed to appreciate that the transaction of providing corporate guarantee: a) is the nature of a shareholder activity/quasi capital and hence is not an international transaction under section 92B of the Act; b) does not entail provision of any services to the AE as per section

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

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

ITA 448/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 448/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige The Deputy Trade Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, Income Tax, High Grounds Circle – 2(1)(1), Sampangi Rama Bangalore. Vs. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, 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 Order Dated 31/03/2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92Section 92C

notice u/s. 143(2) was issued along with notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. 2.3 During the year under consideration, the assessee had international transaction as per Section 92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the case was referred ... Delhi), in the case of a licensed manufacturer incurring AMP expenses it was held that it incurring of AMP expenses would be an international transaction and the issue of determination of ALP was remanded. This decision was however overruled in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl

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

assessee. The case was referred to the 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 ... delayed receivables, the DRP rejected the objection of the Assessee and upheld the order of the TPO benchmarking the same as a separate international transaction and further held that SBI short term FD interest rate was appropriate as against the LIBOR rate duly considered by the TP Officer

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

pricing study of the Appellant and conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination of the arms-length price in connection with the impugned international transactions by: (a) not providing cogent reasons for such rejection; and (b) carrying out fresh economic analysis which is non- contemporaneous and not in accordance ... deemed loan and benchmarking the same is not permissible in law. (b) Not appreciating that the outstanding receivables were a consequence to the principal international transaction and could not be considered as a separate international transaction. (c) the Appellant follows the same policy of not charging any interest on trade

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

assessee has earned a margin of 13.89% on cost (excluding pass through Page 4 of 22 IT(TP)A No. 189/Bang/2021 costs). The international transactions undertaken by the assessee were benchmarked using the Transactional Net Margin Method (`TNMM.) and adopting the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of Operating Profit / Total Cost ... companies whose arithmetic mean margin was computed as 9.81%. Since the assessee had earned a higher margin i.e., 13.89% than the comparable companies, the international transactions were determined to be at Arm's length. 2.4. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has considered the pass-through

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

facts and the circumstances of the case, the PCIT has failed to appreciate that learned AO had carried an assessment of the international transactions during the course of the regular assessment proceedings and reference to the TPO in the present case would result in reassessment of the transactions which ... noticed that the A.O. did not refer the 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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate

Section 143(2)

issued on 24/03/2016 by the Ld.AO. During the F.Y. 2014-15, relevant to the A.Y. 2015- 16, the assessee had following international transaction with its AE. Amount (in Description INR) Provision for software services 46,55,86,843 Page 6 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Provision for marketing ... fall within the same domain of software development. Accordingly, Mind Tree Ltd. was included in the list of comparables while determining the ALP of international transactions with A.Es. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 5.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

above • Akshay Software Technologies Limited • Evoke Technologies Limited • I2T2 India Limited 6. During the year under consideration, the assessee has entered into the following international transactions:- As per TP Received/ Particulars Paid/Payable document Receivable Purchase of assets 4100583 4100583 Provision of software development of services 1092854334 1092854334 Reimbursement of expenses ... percentile of the IT(TP)A No.2577/Bang/2019 Page 6 of 27 weighted average margin of the comparables and therefore the assessee concluded that the international transaction is within the arm’s length. 10. The TPO rejected the comparables chosen by the assessee and applied new filters to select fresh comparables

Ingredion India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2156/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm The Income Tax Officer Ingredion India Pvt. Ltd 15(20)(1) 1605 Rupa Solitaire, Millennium Business Park, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Thane, Belapur Rd, Mahape, M.K.Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 710 Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecc1920C Assessee By : Shri. Ketan Ved. Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi D Hande, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 20.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D Hande, SR AR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92d

29/11/2012 declaring loss of ₹17,96,482/- was assessed at ₹ 1,34,66,184/- by making an adjustment of arm’s length price of international transaction by ₹ 1,52,62,664/-. 2156/MUM/2017 M/s Ingredion India Pvt Ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 02. The assessee has raised following ground of appeals ... Appellant, under section 92CA(3) of the Act in respect of the various 2156/MUM/2017 M/s Ingredion India Pvt Ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 international transactions entered into by it with its Associated Enterprises (AEs’) during the year ended 31 March 2012. 2. The learned Assessing Officer/TPO, while making the aforesaid adjustment

Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

declaring a total income of Rs.3,08,05,230. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee has entered into the international transaction towards provision of support services to its Associated Enterprise ("AE") amounting to INR 33.81 crores. Hence a IT(TP)A Nos.27/BANG/2020 & 194/BANG/2021 Page ... adjustment towards working capital differences. On this issue we have heard the rival submissions. The relevant provisions of the Act insofar as comparability of international transaction with a transaction of similar nature entered into between unrelated parties, provides as follows; Determination of arm’s length price under section

M/S. Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 27/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Dy CIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfs Shipping (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8003/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.8002 & 8003/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy Cit Cc 1(2) Mumbai M/S. Pfs Shipping 906 9Th Flr Pratishtha (India) Ltd. बिधम/ Bhavan Old Cgo Bldg 5Th Flr Bhupati (Annex) M K Road. Chambers 13 Natjew Vs. Mumbai 400004 Road, Opera House. Mumbai 400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadca8387L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha-Cit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha-CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92

Assessing Officer u/s 92 C A (1) of the Act to the TPO to determine Arms Length Price(ALP) with reference to international transaction reported in form 3 CEB with its AE. The TPO noted that Assessee has given Corporate Guarantee to ICICI Bank, Singapore Branch and SBI Singapore Branch

Dy CIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfs Shipping (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8002/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha-CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92

Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt./Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessmetnt Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1224/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 69CSection 92C(1)

aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds. 1:0 Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 20.00.44.704/ - to the international transaction relating to export of goods 1 : 1 The learned Assessing Officer ("AO")/ Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in making an upward adjustment ... total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating to the export of goods entered into by the I.T.A. No. 1224/Mum/2021 3 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Appellant with its Associated Enterprise ("AE") was not at arm's length. 1:2 The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred in rejecting Transactional

Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7899/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd. Tax, Tower Vi, Iv Floor, Solitaire Central Circle 8(1), Corporate Park, Chakala, Vs. Andheri (E) Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf4252A Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

making the upward transfer pricing adjustment to the extent of Rs. 2,79,30,148/- in respect of appellant's international transactions with associated enterprise ('AE') as well as appellant's transactions with Non-AEs. The appellant submits that no transfer pricing adjustment is warranted in its case and wishes ... been made at the entity level without appreciating that such entity level adjustments have been made not only with respect to the appellant's international transactions with its AES, which were scrutinized and commented upon by the TPO (Le., the revenues of CP and GIC division) but also (1) with

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

learned AO in not demonstrating the motive of the Appellant to shift profits outside of India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions, either at the stage of invoking or initiating the assessment or at the stage of framing the assessment; 9. erred in confirming the action ... Explanation (i)(c) inserted by Finance Act 2102, with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002 whereby the capital investment could be covered as an international transaction under "capital financing" and such transaction would yield accrued interest which is "income for the purposes of section 92(1), so as to be dealt under

ACIT -3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

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, the reference by learned AO to the Learned TPO is illegal and bad in law; 2.2 Not upholding ... resultant cost in arm’s length scenario. Accordingly, the TPO proposed an addition of Rs. 1,52,47,997 in respect of international transaction pertaining to ‘payment of technical consultancy fees’. The AO passed the draft assessment order under section 143 (3) r/w section 144C

Ss Oral Hygiene Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 645/HYD/2011[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

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

Rs.1,46,71,277 to Colgate Palmolive Company, USA(CP.,USA). Assessee filed audit report in Form-3CEB in respect of the international transaction. Assessee Company's sole customer is Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. Assessee Company is completely dependent on CP, USA for technical know-how. Section ... other enterprise has exclusive rights. In view of the provisions of section 92A(2)(g), assessee company and CP,USA are associated enterprises. This international transaction of payment of technical fee was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for computation of arm's length price, with prior approval