← 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

The ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Va Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 326/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp) No.7/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.8/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.9/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.326/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V.A Tech Wabag Limited, Corporate Circle-3(2) No.17, Wabag House, Chennai 200 Feet Radial Road, Sunnambukolathur, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aabcv0225G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Kutty, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. C. Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Amitabh Shukla, A.M : Delay S. Appel- Appeal Nos. Ays Cit(A) Order Details Respondent In Filing No. Lant Appeal A B C D E F G Acit, Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / M/S. V.A Tech It(Tp)-7 / Cc- 2020-21 / 1029389607 (1) Wabag 1 2013-14 4 Days Chny/2021 3(2), Dt.31.12.2020 Limited, Chennai Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-8 / 2 2014-15 2020-21 / 1029389231 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-9 / 3 2015-16 2020-21 / 1029389414 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-326 3 4 2016-17 2020-21 / 1031510911 (1) /Chny/2021 Months Dt.16.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kutty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)

respect of action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld. AO in respect of transfer pricing adjustments u/s IT(TP)A No.7, 8, 9 & 326/Chny/2021 :- 14 -: 92CA(3). From the perusal of Ld. AO’s order we find that the Ld. TPO had recommended

M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1701/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the rate of corporate guarantee commission be reduced reasonably ... that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the rate of corporate guarantee commission be reduced reasonably. 5. General The Appellant

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1012/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the rate of corporate guarantee commission be reduced reasonably ... that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the rate of corporate guarantee commission be reduced reasonably. 5. General The Appellant

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1011/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the rate of corporate guarantee commission be reduced reasonably ... that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the rate of corporate guarantee commission be reduced reasonably. 5. General The Appellant

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1010/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the rate of corporate guarantee commission be reduced reasonably ... that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the rate of corporate guarantee commission be reduced reasonably. 5. General The Appellant