“safe harbour rules”

Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2016-17

doesn't cross the proposed filter, hence cannot considered as a right comparable.” 21 6.9 We find that the Tribunal (supra) invoking safe harbour rules for International Transaction (Rules 10TA to 10G) held functional dissimilarity of comparable companies. The term “core auto components” has been defined in Rule 10TA

Dhr Holding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2012-13]

similar nature; Appropriate adjustment ought to have been 2.3 provided under Rule 10B( 1 )(e) of the Rules; and Reliance on the Safe Harbour Rules was neither 2.4 appropriate nor correct. 3. On the facts and in law, Ld. TPO erred in aggregating the international transactions of provision of business

Keihin Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with about directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Keihin Automotive Systems Pvt. Dcit, Ltd.[Now Amalgamated & Known As Vs. Keihin India Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.,] Circle: 2 (1), Plot No. 663, Phase–5, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana – 122 016. Pan: Aaeck4216F (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee. The learned authorised representative reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. He also relied on rule 10 TA of the safe Harbour rules wherein interest expenses is required to be excluded from the operating expenses. 22. The learned departmental representative submitted that safe Harbour rules do not apply

ACIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Circle-14(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi G-02, Salcom Aurum Complex, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aacck4380L (Appellant) (Respondent)

regarding the Corporate Guarantee, by allowing Corporate Guarantee fees at mere 0.25% instead of the 1.30% levied by the TPO, whereas if the Safe Harbour Rules laid down under Income Tax Rules were to be followed, the assessee should have had accept the fees at 2%? (iv) Whether

M/S Bergen Engines India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Bergen Engines India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit 2Nd Floor, 52-B, Okhla Circle-4(2) Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-3, Okhla New Delhi Aaecb7223M (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee are highly disproportionate to the comparables. However, this has also not been accepted by TPO by referring to the provision of (i) safe harbour rules (ii) provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, it is to be noted that, Rule