← All Phrases

“safe harbour rules”

Transfer PricingSection 92CBSection 92CB105 judgments

The decision most relied on for safe harbour rules is Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (77 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 10 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on safe harbour rules

Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
77 Taxmann.com 48 · 2017 · Reported
10
citing judgments

This case does not lay down a clear proposition of law based on the provided excerpts. The passages focus on listing other cases and describing the business of a company rather than stating a legal holding.

Judgments citing safe harbour rules

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 739/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountαντ Μεμβer

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Page 1 ITA No.739/Mum/2022 Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX

Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

also placed reliance on the finding of the Ld. DRP on page 14 of its order wherein the Ld. DRP have followed the safe harbour rules as mandated by the CBDT. 16. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the records. We observe that the impugned

DCIT Cent. Cir. -7(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -42), Mumbai vs. Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for

ITA 4713/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 92Section 92BSection 92C(3)

assessee during the earlier financial year and during the year under consideration. The Id. TPO/A.O. has also without prejudice considered the safe Harbour Rules notified on 18.09.2013 for the loan transaction upto Rs.50 crores where the interest rate to be applied has to be the base rate of State Bank

Associated Capsules P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for

ITA 4620/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 92Section 92BSection 92C(3)

assessee during the earlier financial year and during the year under consideration. The ld. TPO/A.O. has also without prejudice considered the safe Harbour Rules notified on 18.09.2013 for the loan transaction upto Rs.50 crores where the interest rate to be applied has to be the base rate of State Bank

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 77/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

towards loan facility granted to its AE is only a letter of comfort and not a guarantee. We notice that Rule 10TA of Safe Harbour Rules for International Transactions defines "corporate guarantee" as explicit corporate guarantee extended by a company to its wholly owned subsidiary being a non-resident

Asstt. CIT -Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 1241/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

towards loan facility granted to its AE is only a letter of comfort and not a guarantee. We notice that Rule 10TA of Safe Harbour Rules for International Transactions defines "corporate guarantee" as explicit corporate guarantee extended by a company to its wholly owned subsidiary being a non-resident

Gandhinagar District Co.Op.Milk Producers Union Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Circle Gandhinaga, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. DArsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

under Section 143(3) was passed on 28.12.2016. On verification of available record, it was found that though assessee had made application under safe harbour rule, no order was issued. The system of safe harbour rules was not followed properly and one of the consequences was that the other issues

Iomedia India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-12(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 995/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Iomedia India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Level-4, Regus Rectangle Circle-12(3), No. 1, D-4, Saket, New Delhi Commercial Complex, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci5116N

For Appellant: Mr. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 92C

income for the Asst Year 2016-17 on 25.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs 3,81,65,380/- by offering income by adopting Safe Harbour Rules in terms of Rule 10TD(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee company is engaged in the business of outsource services ... argued that since the assessee had offered the income by having a mark up of 25% which is the rate prescribed under the Safe Harbour Rules, no other ALP adjustment could be made by the revenue. We are unable to accept to this proposition in view of the fact that

M/S. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT2(3) (1) -, Mumbai

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

ITA 468/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 80

determined in terms of Clause (ii) to Explanation to Section 80-IA (8). TPO also referred to the „Safe Harbour Rules‟ notified by CBDT wherein it provides that the company engaged in the business of generation of power, the rates for the supply of electricity would ... Chemicals Ltd. which is an electricity generation unit in whose case per unit has been determined at Rs.3.99/- which is in accordance with Safe Harbour Rules and also specific external CUP in the case of electricity generation unit. Secondly, he submitted that wherever transfer of goods and services falls under

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7104/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

Held, yes [Para 66] II. Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price [Safe harbour rules] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee had incurred certain expenses on behalf of its AE - As said expenses were to be reimbursed to assesee receipts on account

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1518/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

Held, yes [Para 66] II. Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price [Safe harbour rules] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee had incurred certain expenses on behalf of its AE - As said expenses were to be reimbursed to assesee receipts on account

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1240/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

Held, yes [Para 66] II. Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price [Safe harbour rules] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee had incurred certain expenses on behalf of its AE - As said expenses were to be reimbursed to assesee receipts on account

Sara Logistics Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 97/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

computed PLI at 30.7% and contended that since the profit margin of the Appellant is more than the rate of 20% specified in Safe Harbour Rules, no transfer pricing adjustment could be made. We reject the aforesaid contention of the Appellant. The reliance on the Safe Harbour Rules

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5459/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10
Section 14A

spread of 2.19% to assessee's cost of borrowing i.e. 7.59%, cost of domestic borrowings was worked out to be 9.78%. Relying upon safe harbour rules, Prime Lending Rate was worked out to be 12.75%. The ALP based on Indian Corporate Bond Rates was worked out to be 15%. Finally

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5458/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12
Section 14A

spread of 2.19% to assessee's cost of borrowing i.e. 7.59%, cost of domestic borrowings was worked out to be 9.78%. Relying upon safe harbour rules, Prime Lending Rate was worked out to be 12.75%. The ALP based on Indian Corporate Bond Rates was worked out to be 15%. Finally

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5457/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11
Section 14A

spread of 2.19% to assessee's cost of borrowing i.e. 7.59%, cost of domestic borrowings was worked out to be 9.78%. Relying upon safe harbour rules, Prime Lending Rate was worked out to be 12.75%. The ALP based on Indian Corporate Bond Rates was worked out to be 15%. Finally

DCIT CC 8(3)(Erstwhile DCIT, CC-46, Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5327/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12
Section 14A

spread of 2.19% to assessee's cost of borrowing i.e. 7.59%, cost of domestic borrowings was worked out to be 9.78%. Relying upon safe harbour rules, Prime Lending Rate was worked out to be 12.75%. The ALP based on Indian Corporate Bond Rates was worked out to be 15%. Finally

DCIT CC 8(3)(Erstwhile DCIT, CC-46, Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5326/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11
Section 14A

spread of 2.19% to assessee's cost of borrowing i.e. 7.59%, cost of domestic borrowings was worked out to be 9.78%. Relying upon safe harbour rules, Prime Lending Rate was worked out to be 12.75%. The ALP based on Indian Corporate Bond Rates was worked out to be 15%. Finally

DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5325/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10
Section 14A

spread of 2.19% to assessee's cost of borrowing i.e. 7.59%, cost of domestic borrowings was worked out to be 9.78%. Relying upon safe harbour rules, Prime Lending Rate was worked out to be 12.75%. The ALP based on Indian Corporate Bond Rates was worked out to be 15%. Finally

DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4632/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09
Section 14A

spread of 2.19% to assessee's cost of borrowing i.e. 7.59%, cost of domestic borrowings was worked out to be 9.78%. Relying upon safe harbour rules, Prime Lending Rate was worked out to be 12.75%. The ALP based on Indian Corporate Bond Rates was worked out to be 15%. Finally