“FAR analysis”

Micro Focus Software Inc., Usa vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrimicro Focus Software Inc. V/S. Dcit,(International Tax) बनाम (Formerly Known As Novell Circle 3(2)(2), Inc.) 16Th Floor, Air India Laurel, Block D, 65/2, Building, Nariman Point, Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Mumbai-400021 Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore, Karnataka, India- 560093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5034F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

taxability of which is on the basis of revenues of the activities of the GE attributable to the PE, in turn based on the FAR analysis of the DAPE, minus the payments attributable in respect of such activities. In simple words, whatever are the revenues generated on account of functional ... examined. It was examined but the Assessing Officer did not find specific fault in the agent's remuneration not being in accordance with the FAR analysis. He has rather proceeded to, in a way, disregard the foreign entity altogether by suggesting that no business risk is assumed by the foreign

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

Ergo the rewards of the risks were also entirely reaped by the assessee in the form of 99% profit. Thus, even if one does FAR analysis of the performance guarantee given by the assessee to FGB for execution of the contract where entire risk and rewards and the benefit ... assessee that any benefit has been passed on to the AE. 16. Even if it is reckoned as international transaction, then also on FAR analysis and looking to fact that the reward or profit to the AE is almost negligible, i.e. the ultimate profit is not even 1%, the adjustment

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Afcon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

Ergo the rewards of the risks were also entirely reaped by the assessee in the form of 99% profit. Thus, even if one does FAR analysis of the performance guarantee given by the assessee to FGB for execution of the contract where entire risk and rewards and the benefit ... assessee that any benefit has been passed on to the AE. 16. Even if it is reckoned as international transaction, then also on FAR analysis and looking to fact that the reward or profit to the AE is almost negligible, i.e. the ultimate profit is not even 1%, the adjustment

Bestseller Fashion India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bestseller Fashion India Private Limited Asst. Cit-9(2)(1) The Lalit Residency, 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Lalit Hotelsahar Airport Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaecb 2906 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Jabir Contractor Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2024

into advertisement and marketing support services and are functionally distinct with that of the assessee. The ld. TPO has also not made a FAR analysis on the same as to the functions performed by the assessee, the assets and the risks for the purpose of determining

Jushi India Fiberglass Private Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Churchgate, Mumbai

In the results, in the comparability study after giving working capital

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

concluded that the assessee is not doing any value addition and the products imported from AEs are sold in the market, therefore, consider the FAR analysis, Resale Price Method (RPM), is to be considered as a Most Appropriate Method (MAM) as adopted by the TPO. 7. During the year under

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

because while determining the arm’s length price where is the real benefit arisen or accrued is very crucial and FAR analysis of the transaction. 14. As noted above, for the performance of the entire contract work, guarantee was provided by FGB for provision of banking facilities to Afcons Mideast ... Ergo the rewards of the risks were also entirely reaped by the assessee in the form of 99% profit. Thus, even if one does FAR analysis of the performance guarantee given by the assessee to FGB for execution of the contract where entire risk and rewards and the benefit

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

provisions of India-Germany Tax Treaty ('Tax Treaty). The assessee filed its return of income and Form No. 3CEB on receipt / cash basis. In FAR analysis based on Rule 10B of Income Tax Rules and TP study report was submitted before the ld. AO. Assessee has mainly relied upon ... justify the arm’s length nature of its international transaction, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that Indian AEs have benchmarked all the transactions after detailed FAR analysis entered into with the assessee. The Indian AEs have earned Net Cost Plus Margin / Net Profit Margin (after considering services availed from assessee) that

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

captive power generating unit which is eligible for deduction u/s.80IA, not only is to be taken as a tested party but also the FAR analysis has to be done from power generating entities and not the distribution entities because distribution companies incurred various other costs of transmission loss and distribution ... benchmarked is the profits of the eligible unit and therefore, eligible unit alone should be taken as a tested party and the FAR analysis has to be done of the eligible unit vis-à-vis the other units which are generating electricity. Lastly, he has given the detailed analysis

Clsa India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Clsa India Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit Ltu 29Th Floor, Centre 1 World Trade Formerly Known As Clsa India Ltd. Vs. 8/F Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Centre, Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2262 K (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarpekar, Shri Paras Savla : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Sr. Ar & Respondent By Shri A. K. Ambastha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024

said transaction. 2. CUP method cannot be applied for the said transaction, for the reason that the difference in the far analysis and the nature of the services would depend on the requirement of the clients. 3. Without prejudice only non AE Domestic Institutional Investors (Dlls) has to be compared

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER