← All Phrases

“advance pricing agreement”

Transfer PricingSection 92CCSection 92CC125 judgments

Judgments citing advance pricing agreement

Astra Zeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 419/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

issues raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 3 to 9 relates to transfer pricing adjustment, which has been settled in the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement entered between the assessee and the CBDT dated 16/06/2023 for the period from assessment years 2016-17 to assessment year 2020-21. Accordingly, these

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4341/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT D/R
Section 10(35)Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 80G

case and in law, the learned AO has erred in not considering the fact that Assessee has entered into a Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement with the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 27 March 2024 for five consecutive years covering Financial Year ("FY') 2015-16 to FY 2019- 20 along

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eygbs (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1368/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Chavali Narayan & Sri.Keerthinarayan, ARs
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(4)

also made disallowance u/s.14A r.w.rule 8D and framed the assessment. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has entered into Advance Pricing Agreement [APA] proceedings and has offered some income and simultaneously claimed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. However, the A.O. relying upon the provisions of section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eygbs (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1367/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Chavali Narayan & Sri.Keerthinarayan, ARs
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(4)

also made disallowance u/s.14A r.w.rule 8D and framed the assessment. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has entered into Advance Pricing Agreement [APA] proceedings and has offered some income and simultaneously claimed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. However, the A.O. relying upon the provisions of section

Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As 'Dboi Global Services Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 2522/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

India Pvt Ltd 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “Transfer Pricing Grounds: 1. The Appellant entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement ('APA') with the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') on 17 March 2021. The APA covers nine assessment years ... seeking withdrawal of the grounds no. 1 and 2, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertaining to transfer pricing adjustment in view of the Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) entered with the CBDT on 17/03/2021, which also covers the year under consideration. From the perusal of the afore-noted letter, we find

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

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

ITA 1613/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 92C

that 2. the AO/TPO erred in upholding the Transfer Pricing adjustment of ₹ 108,58,93,825.00 after ignoring the bilateral advance pricing agreement dated 26th day of March 2024. IT(TP)A No.1613/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 8 3. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee at the time ... hearing has filed written submissions dated 8 October 2024 along with bilateral advance pricing agreement dated 26th day of March 2024 and submitted that during the pendency of the objections raised before the ld. DRP, the assessee entered into bilateral advance pricing agreement with Central Board of Direct Taxes dated

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 458/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.458/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Adp Private Limited, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aanca8983A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 30/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)

take up for hearing. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee has entered into bilateral advance pricing agreement(BAPA) with ITA No.458/Hyd/2022 2 CBDT on 28.03.2024 and hence only Ground Nos.3, 4, 6 & 7 are required the consideration

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

ITA 4768/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270A

MFSI in India by misinterpreting and misunderstanding the "Principal to Principal" arrangement between MFSI and MFSIPL under the Distribution Agreement and Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement between India and USA ('BAPA') and disregarding the arm's length arrangement between MFSI and MFSIPL 3. Without prejudice to the Ground

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 722/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Mahima Goud, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 10BSection 154Section 92CSection 92C(4)

Officer has been accepted by the assessee or to the extent confirmed by the appellate forums under the Act; (iii) determined by an advance pricing agreement (iv) is made as per the safe harbour rules framed under section 92CB; or (v) is arising as a result of resolution

R1 Rcm Holdco Inc. (Formerly Known As R1 Rcm Inc.), Usa vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

nature of royalty Income. However, your response has not been found to be satisfactory. It is seen that IndianAE had entered into an advance pricing agreement with Government of India. A perusal of the said agreement reveals that you have specialized softwares (page 18 of the agreement) with patent rights

Ericsson India Global Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Spl. Range 3, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2368/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 90Section 92C

erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on the additional income agreed as per the Advance Pricing Agreement entered between the appellant and the Central Board of Direct Taxes and offered to tax by the appellant in the modified return of income ... However, the same stands ITA Nos. 2367 & 2368/Del/2019 4 Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. undisputed post conclusion of unilateral advance pricing agreement ("APA"). 8. The Assessing Officer vide order dated February 16, 2018, confirmed the adjustment made by TPO and allowed the FTC claim as per revised return

Je Energy Ventures Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92B

below:- 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the forgoing rival pleadings and find forced in the Revenue's stand since an advance pricing agreement "APA" is applicable only for the specified time span not exceeding five consecutive previous years u/s 92CC(4) rw sub section

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1026/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

administrative support fees are recovered at cost (i.e. without any mark-up) and the said fact has been accepted in the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement dated 8 August 2019 between the Central Board of Direct Taxes and JIPL as well. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the fact that

DCIT It 3.1.1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1025/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

administrative support fees are recovered at cost (i.e. without any mark-up) and the said fact has been accepted in the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement dated 8 August 2019 between the Central Board of Direct Taxes and JIPL as well. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the fact that

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1024/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

administrative support fees are recovered at cost (i.e. without any mark-up) and the said fact has been accepted in the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement dated 8 August 2019 between the Central Board of Direct Taxes and JIPL as well. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the fact that

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1023/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024
For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

administrative support fees are recovered at cost (i.e. without any mark-up) and the said fact has been accepted in the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement dated 8 August 2019 between the Central Board of Direct Taxes and JIPL as well. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the fact that

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

requested us to kindly delete the TP adjustment on account of AMP expenses. A. AMP is part of combined TNMM as per Advance Pricing Agreement (‘APA’) 11.21 Without prejudice to the above arguments, he submitted that there is no requirement to benchmark the AMP transaction separately as the Assessee ... above referred decisions were rejected. " (Emphasis supplied) 12.2 The ld. D.R. further submitted that the AMP expenditure is not covered under the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered newly by assessee with CBDT and therefore, AMP adjustment made by the TPO being separate international transaction shall sustain. 13. We have heard

Cook India Medical Devices Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1310 & 1311/Chny/2023 & Ita No.441/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.22, Sp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2) Kochar Jade, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccc 7628P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

outset, submitted that such services were received in subsequent years also and the assessee entered into Advance pricing Agreement (APA) with Hon’ble CBDT on 31.03.2021. The terms of the agreement apply to previous years 2014-15 to 2018- 19. The Ld AR pleaded that the adjustment

Cook India Medical Devices Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1311/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1310 & 1311/Chny/2023 & Ita No.441/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.22, Sp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2) Kochar Jade, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccc 7628P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

outset, submitted that such services were received in subsequent years also and the assessee entered into Advance pricing Agreement (APA) with Hon’ble CBDT on 31.03.2021. The terms of the agreement apply to previous years 2014-15 to 2018- 19. The Ld AR pleaded that the adjustment

Cook India Medical Devices Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1310/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1310 & 1311/Chny/2023 & Ita No.441/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.22, Sp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2) Kochar Jade, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccc 7628P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

outset, submitted that such services were received in subsequent years also and the assessee entered into Advance pricing Agreement (APA) with Hon’ble CBDT on 31.03.2021. The terms of the agreement apply to previous years 2014-15 to 2018- 19. The Ld AR pleaded that the adjustment