“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

Ims Health Analytics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 300/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani & Sri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

company has two subsidiaries namely Pharma ARC Inc (USA) and Pharma ARC Consulting Services Gmbh (Switzerland). The company during the year has entered various international transactions with its AEs including the provision of IteS Services. The assessee to benchmark such international transaction (provision of ITES services) has adopted the TNMM ... appellant's profit is unjustified. This Court is of opinion that to apply the TNMM, the assessee's net profit margin realized from international transactions had to be calculated only with reference to cost incurred by it, and not by any other entity, either third party vendors

M/S Ni Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3259/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ajith V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R

well as other parts of the world. For the impugned year, it has filed its return of income of Rs.4,60,74,010/-. Since international transactions were present, the case of the assessee has been referred to the TPO for determining the ALP with respect to the international transactions entered ... that the ALP arrived after the outcome of MAP proceedings for transaction with AEs based in US may kindly be applied to the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its non-US based AEs. IT(TP)A No.3259/Bang/2018 M/s. NI Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore Page

Rics India Private Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Haryana

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

ITA 816/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmarics India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Gf-17, Ground Floor, Assistant Commissioner Of Block B, Vatika Atrium Income Tax/ Income-Tax Centre 53, Gurgaon Officer, National Faceless 122002 Assessment Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcr7432K

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

corporate strategy. The assessee has entered into a service agreement with RICS. The functions performed by the assessee in relation to the international transaction pertaining to provision of marketing support services are as follows:- a) Local promotion and marketing of RICS. b) Networking with businesses and industry. c) Networking with ... scrutiny and the Learned AO made a reference to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee. The Learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on 21-01- 2021. 5. The assessee is engaged

Ramboll India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1468/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaramboll India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 30, Mohan Singh Palace, Circle-19(1), Connaught Place, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahcp8488M

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanveer, CIT DR

Section 92C

Learned AO referred the matter to Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in terms of section 92CA(1) of the Act for benchmarking the international transactions carried out by the assessee with its AEs. The Learned TPO vide his order dated 30-7-2021 proposed adjustments towards – a) Provision of services ... Learned AR before us made a preliminary argument that interest on outstanding receivables per se could not be construed independently as a separate international transaction and hence no adjustment under chapter X of the Act could be made for the same. This argument of the Learned AR is flawed

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7454/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarcorteva Agriscience India Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Circle-11(1), Ltd), 17Th Floor, Tower-C, Dlf New Delhi Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Dcit, Vs. Corteva Agriscience India Circle-11(1), Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Ltd), 17Th New Delhi Floor, Tower-C, Dlf Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv Shri Pulkit Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Rao, CIT DR

Section 144C

Teflon non-stick finishes , Autorefinish , monofilament and Trading in DuPont and other products and acting as agent for which it earns commission. The various international transactions undertaken by the assessee with its AE during the year under consideration are as under:- Method used by Value of transaction Nature of transaction ... TNMM 457,891,784 AEs Transfer of Business Unit CUP 40,612,560 Research and Engineering TNMM 111,493,809 Services Rendered 9. The international transaction which is in dispute before us is support services availed from AEs by the assessee for which it has paid

E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6879/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Rao, CIT DR

Section 144C

Orion India Systems Private Limited, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. PCIT, Mumbai-Six Circle Fifteen (One)(One)

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Khevana GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 50B(1)Section 92C

section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. Since, during the year under consideration, the assessee entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises, reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of ALP in respect of said transactions. As the Transfer ... Pricing Officer vide its order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act did not find any adverse inference to the value of international transactions entered into by the assessee, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 24/09/2021 3 passed under section 143(3) r.w. section 144B

Software Ag India Sales Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 4161/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrasoftware Ag India Sales Vs. Dcit, Circle -22(2) Private Limited Delhi No.1260, Mittal Tower, 14Th Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, S.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore, Karnataka -560 001 Pan: Aabci9992B (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A.No.385/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.4161/Del/2024] Assessment Year:2020-21 Software Ag India Sales Vs. Dcit, Circle -22(2) Private Limited Delhi No.1260, Mittal Tower, 14Th Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, S.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore, Karnataka -560 001 Pan: Aabci9992B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Shri Parth, Adv. Department By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024

with respect to the distribution and sales support activity, on an aggregate basis has been adopted by undertaking a benchmarking analysis for the primary international transaction i,e., Distribution activity. Accordingly, the Assessee has adopted a combined transaction approach for benchmarking the distribution and sales support activity/function. In order ... particularly referred to para 17 of DRP order which reads as under:- “17. Revenue of the assessee is from domestic transactions and international transactions. After TP study is rejected, it is contingent upon revenue to determine ALP of the international transactions. However, since accounts of the assessee are not reliable

Bosch Automotive Electronics India Private Limited, Karnataka vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department and DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1473/BANG/2024[Assessment Year 2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Suryanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Senthil, D.R

Section 130Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 40Section 92C

ACIT. TPI (1)(2), Bangalore, ('Ld. TPO or 'learned TPO') for the computation of arm's length price in relation to the international transactions by the National e-Assessment Centre (NeAC) through ITBA portal. Notice u/s 92CA(2) of the Act was issued on 31.05.2023, along with questionnaire ... financial statement for financial year ('FY') 2019-20 • Transfer Pricing Documentation ('TP Report/ TP Documentation') for FY 2019-20 • Relevant agreements in respect of international transactions • Computation of total income for FY 2019-20 Tax return for FY 2019-20 IT(TP)A No.1473/Bang/2024 M/s. Bosch Automotive Electronics India

Lm Wind Power Blades India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2089/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavit(Tp)A No.560/Bang/2015 It(Tp)A No.189/Bang/2016 & It(Tp)A No.2089/Bang/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively Lm Wind Power Blades (India) Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.85, Kiadb Industrial Area Phase I, Thimmanayakana Halli Dabaspet Dcit Nelamangala Taluk Vs. Circle-4(1)(1) Bangalore (Rural Dist) 562 111 Bangalore Karnataka Pan No : Aaacl3093R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Hirali Desai & Sri Kushal Goyal, A.Rs Respondent By : Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: All These Three Appeals Related To Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao Dated 3.2.2015, Dated 18.12.2015 & Dated 1.9.2017 Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Hirali Desai & SriFor Respondent: Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 92C

processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) and thereafter selected for scrutiny after issuing statutory invoices. Since international transaction was involved in this case, a reference was made to the TPO for determining the ALP vis-à-vis international transactions entered into

Lm Wind Power Baldes (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 189/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Hirali Desai & SriFor Respondent: Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 92C

Lm Wind Power Blades (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 560/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Hirali Desai & SriFor Respondent: Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 92C

L'Oreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 4577/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarl'Oreal India Private V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra 400 013, बनाम Income Tax- 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacl0738K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Prabhash Shankar [Α.Μ.] This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo' For Short) Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp' For Short), Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Relevant To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2020-21.The Assessee Has Challenged The Grounds Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of Advertisement, Marketing & Promotion (Amp) Expenses. Following Are The Grounds Raised By The Assessee: Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Appellant under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on account of adjustments in the arm's length price (ALP') of the alleged international transactions undertaken by the Appellant. Presumption of fictitious transaction in the nature of provision of brand promotion services since AMP is not an international transaction 2. Erred ... alleging that the AMP expense incurred by the Appellant is an international transaction under Section 92B of the Act. 3. Erred in ignoring that the Appellant has not rendered any service to the Associated Enterprises (AEs) and hence erroneously treating and categorizing AMP expense incurred by the Appellant

International Packaging Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4225/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us, Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Pressed: -

Section 234CSection 92C

Subsequently the said addition/disallowance was continued to be made in final assessment order dated 05/07/2024. The assessee in its Form 3CEB had reported many international transactions however, only the transactions 3 International Packaging Products Pvt. Ltd. relating to exports of goods to AE has been benchmarked

Rallis India Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4210/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golwala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT, D/R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Act was made to DC/ACIT, TP 3(3)(1), Mumbai, for computation of ALP in relation to the international transactions. During the year the assessee has sold goods to its AE, Tata Chemicals International Pte Ltd. Singapore (TCIPL). These goods are sold on "Bill ... Model” basis i.e., the billing is done to TCIPL and the goods are sold directly to third party i.e., Adama Agan Ltd. The international transactions relating to sale of goods was to the tune of Rs.1,77,65,21,572/- and the assessee adopted other method as the most appropriate

Je Energy Ventures P.Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1)(1), G B Nagar

ITA 1450/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Je Energy Ventures P. Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.1A, Sector-16A, Circle 5(1)(1), Industrial Area, Gb Nagar. Noida (Uttar Pradesh) – 201 301. Pan : Aaace0653L

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanveer, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92A

Bank and was of the view that on invocation of corporate guarantee the same became the loan and, accordingly, considered it to be an international transaction and benchmarked the same arriving at arm’s length carrying the fee @ 7.36% (LIBOR + 570 basis points) and proposed to enhance the income ... sustained the 2 addition relying its finding in assessee’s case for AY 2013-14 wherein corporate guarantee was considered to be an international transaction. 3. The ld. counsel has submitted that the invocation of corporate guarantee is a transaction between the assessee and an unrelated entity which is EXIM

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Priya Blue Recycling LLP, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 641/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri

Section 132Section 271ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 92CSection 92D

assessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm’s length price for the assessee's international transactions. The TPO passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 27, 2022, wherein he made no adjustments ... notice under section 271AA for non-compliance with these provisions. The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 47,92,352, being 2% of the international transactions conducted by the assessee. This penalty was levied on purchase transactions with Best Oasis Limited amounting to Rs. 23.96 crore. 4. The assessee filed

Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Thiruvananhapuram

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB ... account; (e) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and (f) failure to report any international transaction or any transaction deemed to be an international transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply

Kag India Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Circle -2, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)Section 271(1)

length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB ... account; (e)failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and (f)failure to report any international transaction or any transaction deemed to be an international transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply

Orchid Pharma Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 73/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(i)

appeal number 3-7 is regarding the adjustment made by the Ld. TPO of Rs.1,01,40,092/- by making adjustments in respect of international transactions made with M/s. Northstar Health Care. The Ld. TPO had treated the said entity as a deemed AE. The Ld. DRP has discussed