← 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

Airlinq Technology Private Limited (Formerly Known As Globetouch Technologies Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 231/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.231/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Globe Touch Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Technologies Private Limited) 306, 100 Feet Road, Binna Mangala Stage – 1, Indiranagar Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aafcg7626L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, Cas Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 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 29.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Was Incorporated On 15.10.2014 As A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Globetouch Inc, Usa. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services (Swd) To Globetouch Inc. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring An Income Of Rs.4,23,01,510 Under The Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act. The Assessment Was Selected

For Appellant: S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, CAsFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

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 entered by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO, vide his order dated 24.10.2019, passed u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act proposed ... Rules, the net profit margin arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions should be adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market. It is not the case

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

learned DRP / AO / TPO erred in making an adjustment even to the value of domestic transaction instead to the value of international transaction as per section 92C of the Act. (corresponding to revised ground no. 5 & original ground no. 5) 6. On the facts and in the circumstances ... differences in the risk profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies for the purpose of determining the arm's length price of the international transactions entered into by the Appellant instead limiting the risk adjustment to 1% without any reasons. (corresponding to revised ground no. 6 & original ground

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

learned DRP / AO / TPO erred in making an adjustment even to the value of domestic transaction instead to the value of international transaction as per section 92C of the Act. (corresponding to revised ground no. 5 & original ground no. 5) 6. On the facts and in the circumstances ... differences in the risk profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies for the purpose of determining the arm's length price of the international transactions entered into by the Appellant instead limiting the risk adjustment to 1% without any reasons. (corresponding to revised ground no. 6 & original ground

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

response to the statutory notices, the assessee filed requisite details. On perusal of the details filed, the Ld.AO noted that the assessee had international transaction exceeding Rs.15 crores and therefore a reference was made to the transfer pricing officer u/s. 92CA of the Act. 2.2 On receipt of the reference ... Ld.TPO called upon assessee to furnish the economic details in respect of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE. The Page 7 IT(TP)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Ld.TPO from the details filed observed that following were the international transactions: International Transactions Receivables Payables / Particulars Method / Received

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

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

ITA 477/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice u/s. 143(2) was served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transactions, reference was made to the TPO in order to determine the arm’s length price [ALP] of the international transactions with Associated Enterprises ... No.477/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 20 TP adjustment in SWD segment 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has entered into the following international transactions with its AE:- International transaction Value(INR) 1,02,94,57,156/- Billing (Revenue) 64,09,05,083/- Direct Salary & other Cost

Polycom Technology ( R & D ) Center P. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia & Shri MihirFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Grounds: 2. erred in making an addition of INR 5.40,23,292 to the total income of the appellant in respect of international transaction pertaining to provision of ITA Nos. 2067/M/2017 & 7398/M/18 Polycom Technology (R&D) Center P. Ltd.; A.Y. 12-13 contract software development services ... erred in making a reference to the TPO under section 92CA of the Act for determining the arm's length price ('ALP") of the international transactions in a mechanical manner, without demonstrating the necessity or expediency of doing so as mandated under sub-section (1) of the Act; Rejection

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3033/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 10ASection 250Section 2D

deduction under Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India by manipulating the prices charged in the international transactions which is a pre-requisite condition to make any adjustment under the provisions of Chapter X of the Act. 1.3 Incorrect rejection of Appellant ... party in the Transfer Pricing documentation maintained by the appellant, arrived at after detailed functional and economic analysis of the transacting parties and the international transaction under consideration as mandated by the Rule 108(2) of the Rules. 1.3.2 Premeditated application of own set of comparables by the learned

Vena Energy Patan Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 255/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

negative book profit of Rs.20,11,07,559 u/s. 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had international transactions with its AE and therefore a reference was made to the TPO. During the TP proceedings, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs.20 ... Tribunal in assessee’s own case has considered the same issue and has deleted the TP adjustment. The ld AR also submitted that the international transaction entered by the Assessee with respect to payment of interest on NCDs is governed by the same agreement for both

Vena Energy Kn Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 254/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

negative book profit of Rs.20,11,07,559 u/s. 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had international transactions with its AE and therefore a reference was made to the TPO. During the TP proceedings, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs.20 ... Tribunal in assessee’s own case has considered the same issue and has deleted the TP adjustment. The ld AR also submitted that the international transaction entered by the Assessee with respect to payment of interest on NCDs is governed by the same agreement for both

Vena Energy Mh Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 253/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

negative book profit of Rs.20,11,07,559 u/s. 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had international transactions with its AE and therefore a reference was made to the TPO. During the TP proceedings, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs.20 ... Tribunal in assessee’s own case has considered the same issue and has deleted the TP adjustment. The ld AR also submitted that the international transaction entered by the Assessee with respect to payment of interest on NCDs is governed by the same agreement for both

Vena Energy Fatanpur Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 252/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

negative book profit of Rs.20,11,07,559 u/s. 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had international transactions with its AE and therefore a reference was made to the TPO. During the TP proceedings, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs.20 ... Tribunal in assessee’s own case has considered the same issue and has deleted the TP adjustment. The ld AR also submitted that the international transaction entered by the Assessee with respect to payment of interest on NCDs is governed by the same agreement for both

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

Promotional (“AMP”) expenses 2. The Learned AO / Learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in considering the AMP expenses of the Appellant as an international transaction even though these expenses were paid to unrelated parties and thereby proposing an adjustment of INR 61,17,77,592. In doing so, the Learned ... promotion (AMP) in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee did not consider the incurring of AMP as an international transaction and did not file any transfer pricing analysis bench marking the AMP expenses. The Transfer Pricing Officer IT(TP)A No.202/Bang/2021 Page

M/S. Sulzer Tech India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt./ Dy./ Asstt. CIT/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 633/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Saeana a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

lower authorities erred in excluding Desein Pvt. Ltd. from the set of comparables which were adopted by the assessee in benchmarking its international transaction, on the sole ground that the said comparable had earned a lower profit as compared to other comparable companies. 1.2. Without prejudice ... assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to adjustment of Rs. 6,69,18,234 made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) in respect of international transaction of ‘Rendering of Tendering, Design & Engineering services and IT services’. M/s. Sulzer Tech India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.633/Mum./2021 4. The brief facts

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

assessee filed revised return of income on 6.8.2013 at a loss of Rs.2,78,32,580. 3. The assessee has entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprise (AE) S No Nature of international Amount (Rs.) Method adopted by transaction Assessee 1 Income from service provided ... selected for scrutiny and reference was made to the TPO. The TPO vide order dated 25.1.2016 made the following adjustments :- S No Nature of international transaction Amount (Rs.) 1 Cost contribution on account of 45,11,845 management fees 2 Purchase of traded goods 1,76,55,963 3 Installation

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 728/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

issued to the assessee. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm’s length price [ALP] for international transactions of the assessee with its Associated Enterprise [AE]. As per the Transfer Pricing study, the assessee has entered into the following international transactions with ... determined an adjustment to the ALP by making the following adjustments :- IT(TP)A Nos.728/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 17 S No Nature of international transaction Amount (Rs.) 1 Cost contribution on account of management consultancy 2,68,18,518 2 Payment towards technical consultancy 1,36,61,615 3 Provision

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

addition of Rs. 29,906,541/- to the appellant's total income by virtue of re computation of arm's length price of the international transaction under section 92 of the Act. 2. Rejection of methodical Transfer Pricing analysis and selection of Most Appropriate Method for Benchmarking Analysis ... Price Method (RPM) considered by the Appellant and selecting the Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") method, as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of import of finished goods for distribution without providing any cogent reasons for the rejection of RPM. 3. Without prejudice erred in not appreciating

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

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H. Jamshedji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 40

filed its return of income on 25/11/2011, declaring total income of Rs.73,03,21,069. During the year under consideration, assessee entered into following international transactions with its associated enterprises: Sl. Method Transaction F.Y. 2010–11 No. TNMM Purchase of equipments and 438958240 1. Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India ... services in respect of which cost was reimbursement by the assessee to its associated enterprise, treated the arm’s length price of international transaction pertaining to ‘Reimbursement of Expenses‟ as NIL. In conformity, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 25/03/2015. 7. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel

Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As J M Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

December, 2008 passed under Section 143(3) of the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 05. Assessee has entered into a certain international transaction; the matter was referred to Addl. CIT, Transfer Pricing, 1(4), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) for computation of arms length price ... along with other ITA Nos.2206 &2320/Mum2011 Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd; A.Y. 05-06 transactions which are not in dispute, submitted that all international transactions are at arms’ length price. . 07. Assessee has also made a payment to Morgan Stanley International Inc of overseas support services fees amounting

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2206/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

December, 2008 passed under Section 143(3) of the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 05. Assessee has entered into a certain international transaction; the matter was referred to Addl. CIT, Transfer Pricing, 1(4), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) for computation of arms length price ... along with other ITA Nos.2206 &2320/Mum2011 Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd; A.Y. 05-06 transactions which are not in dispute, submitted that all international transactions are at arms’ length price. . 07. Assessee has also made a payment to Morgan Stanley International Inc of overseas support services fees amounting

M/S. Hp Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234B

dated 28.1.2021 made a total adjustment of Rs.54,64,23,323 attributable to the difference in the arm’s length price [ALP] of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE. On objections, the DRP accepted the contentions of the assessee against the TP adjustment and gave