← All Phrases

“transfer pricing adjustment”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C2,153 judgments

The decision most relied on for transfer pricing adjustment is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), cited in 422 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on transfer pricing adjustment

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
114 ITD 448 · 2008 · ITAT
131
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT
381 ITR 154 · 2016 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure incurred by an Indian entity directly benefits its own business and cannot be automatically treated as an international transaction for global brand building by associated enterprises without specific statutory provisions or proper analysis.

CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 206 · 2015 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When determining the arm's length price for interest on a foreign currency loan advanced to an Associated Enterprise, the Indian Prime Lending Rate is not applicable. Instead, the interest rate should be benchmarked based on the prevailing foreign currency rate, such as EURIBOR, or the rate in the country where the loan is received/consumed.

Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India
2 SCC 536 · 2000 · Reported
117
citing judgments

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby affecting the continuation of pending proceedings.

Judgments citing transfer pricing adjustment

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 8700/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

establishing a marketing intangible, the TPO had no jurisdiction to propose an adjustment on account of AMP expense. 3. That the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses as under is bad in law, illegal and uncalled for both on facts and in law. Protective ... Cumulative addition Rs 101,50,70,775 Rs 114,89,41,243 2.8 Being aggrieved by the above proposed transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee filed detailed objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP, while referring to decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 5801/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment u/s 143 (3) of the act was passed on 30 April 2015 wherein an addition on account of the transfer pricing adjustment was made in ITeS segment of the assessee of ₹ 32,661,938 and in marketing support services of ₹ 36,731,715 and management and other administrative services

Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 5770/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment u/s 143 (3) of the act was passed on 30 April 2015 wherein an addition on account of the transfer pricing adjustment was made in ITeS segment of the assessee of ₹ 32,661,938 and in marketing support services of ₹ 36,731,715 and management and other administrative services

M/S. Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT (Inv.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 6558/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment u/s 143 (3) of the act was passed on 30 April 2015 wherein an addition on account of the transfer pricing adjustment was made in ITeS segment of the assessee of ₹ 32,661,938 and in marketing support services of ₹ 36,731,715 and management and other administrative services