← 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

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-46, Mumbai

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

ITA 4287/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

Turner & Townsend Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8763/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Mrinal Kumar, Sr. DFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar, Sr. D
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

margin [operating profit on operating cost) of 3.05% as per the Transfer Pricing documentation and revised margin computed at 7.51% based on safe harbour rules, whereas the comparable companies earned a corresponding three year average margin of 5.47% thus satisfying the arm's length principle. (v) Pursuant to the aforesaid

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Vcostomer Services India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

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

ITA 1618/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

record of the case. We find considerable force in the submission of Id. counsel for the assessee that ld. DRP wrongly invoked Safe Harbour Rule for coming to the conclusion that forex gain/ loss was not to be treated as operating income/ loss for current assessment year because the Safe

M/S. Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1404/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

record of the case. We find considerable force in the submission of Id. counsel for the assessee that ld. DRP wrongly invoked Safe Harbour Rule for coming to the conclusion that forex gain/ loss was not to be treated as operating income/ loss for current assessment year because the Safe

Gvk Power and Infrastructure Limited, Jegurupadu vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 93/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

assessee and hence justified the charging of higher Corporate Guarantee Fees @ 1.90%. Further, the Ld. DR submitted that as per Rule 10TD of Safe Harbour Rules, the rate specified therein was 1% for guarantees above Rs. 100 Crs. The Ld. DR therefore pleaded that the order ... upheld. Contradicting the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not opted for Safe Harbour Rules and hence it cannot be applied. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. We find from

D.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Electrosteel Casting Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Income-Tax, Central G.K. Tower Vs. Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, Camac Street Kolkata -700017 (Pan: Aaace4975B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

above order for A.Y.2007-08" 84(D). Even the Assessee has paid 0.40% as Guarantee Commission to a Bank for similar services. The Safe Harbour rules prescribing 2% as the Guarantee Commission is not relevant as those rules are relevant only to an eligible Assessee who opts to be governed

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

respect of the revenue generated by this company and that the content management, Analytic services are considered to be KPO as per safe harbour rules. This comparable was decided to be excluded from the list of comparables by the coordinate bench of Tribunal vide

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

software services segment. IT(TP) A No. 270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security India Pvt.Ltd. 18. It was submitted that under the safe Harbour Rules under Rule 10TA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules), software development services include support services like debugging of systems and services for maintenance of software

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

pure software development. It is submitted that the software services provided by Infobeans are not pure software development services as defined in the safe harbour rules. This company came to be excluded by the TPO in the earlier years on the basis that it is engaged in product development

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

respect of the revenue generated by this company and that the content management, Analytic services are considered to be KPO as per safe harbour rules. This comparable was decided to be excluded from the list of comparables by the IT(TP)A No.190/Bang/2022 M/s. Radisys India Limited, Bangalore Page

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 174/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, D.R
Section 144(3)Section 37Section 92C

akin to provision of ITES services or back office support services. As per the Rule 10TA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Safe Harbour Rules), the remote maintenance services which contributes 60% of the revenue of the company is very much within the definition of ITES. As the company ... website information, argued that the company is into diversified activities that can be classified as KPO services as per the definition of safe harbour rules. At the outset, he noted that the information put in Website cannot be given complete credence, as they are mere forward-looking information and statements

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 932/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

publishing. The Assessee submitted that the aforesaid services are not in the nature of ITES. The Assessee pointed out that as per the safe harbour rules introduced by the CBDT ITES has been defined as business process outsourcing services provided mainly with the assistance or use of information technology

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 844/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

publishing. The Assessee submitted that the aforesaid services are not in the nature of ITES. The Assessee pointed out that as per the safe harbour rules introduced by the CBDT ITES has been defined as business process outsourcing services provided mainly with the assistance or use of information technology

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

submitted that the requirement to exclude extraordinary items for benchmarking and determination of ALP is a well settled law. Even the Safe Harbour Rules allow for exclusion of extra-ordinary items while computing the operating expenses and the same is also provided in the OECD TP Guidelines 2010, as extracted

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 602/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.602/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. (Earlier Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Circle – 7(1)(1), Centre Private Limited), Bengaluru. No.81 & 82, Tesco H S C, Epip Area, White Field, Bengaluru-560 066. Pan : Aabct 8915 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

with mark-up. He submitted that the TPO has accepted the aggregation of expenses in the succeeding year. He also submitted that the “safe harbour rules for International transactions” included in Rule 10TA defines the term “operating expenses” in clause (j). As per the said definition, the “costs relating ... separate international transaction and further holding that its ALP as NIL. 5.3 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the Safe harbour rules prescribed under Rule 10TA shall apply only to eligible assesses. In the instant case, TPO has given valid reasons for treating this reimbursement as separate international

M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2027/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, AR & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot be compared

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 2024/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, AR & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot be compared

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot be compared

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot be compared

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot be compared