← 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

M/S Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT, C-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 9/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedm/S Emersion Automation Solutios The Deputy Commissioner Intelligent Platforms Private Limited Of Income Tax, Circle- (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent 3(1)(2), Bmtc Building, Platforms Private Limited), Velankani Vs. Koramangala, Bangalore Tech Park, Building 9, First Floor, 43 Hosur Road, Bangalore-560100 Pan – Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. Rishabh Malhotra, Advocates Revenue By: Sri. Subramanian. S, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav,J.M. Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao / Drp Dated 30Th October, 2018. The Assessee Has Raised 19 Grounds Of Appeal Out Of Which Ground Nos. 1 To 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Not Required Specific Adjudication. Ground No. 6 Related To The Grievance Of The Assessee With Respect To The Adjustment Of Custom Duty, Base Cost, Working Capital Not Granted By The Ao While Completing The Assessment. Ground No. 7 Is With Respect To The Applicability Of Tnmm Method Instead Of Rpm Method Applied By The Assessee For Its Trading Segment Transactions. Ground Nos. 8, 9 & 10 Are Related To The Rejection Of Comparability Analysis Conducted By The Tpo As Affirmed By The Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 11 Is With Respect To The Adjustment Of Working Capital Denied By Tpo Affirmed By Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 12 Is With Respect To The Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation & Ground Nos. 13 & 14 Is With Respect To The Payments Made To Headquarters In Lieu Of Services Obtained By Applying

For Appellant: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. RishabhFor Respondent: Sri. Subramanian. S, JCIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 271(1)(b)Section 5

Bangalore has passed the order u/s 92CA on 11.10.2018, and has concluded that an adjustment is required with regard to transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA: SN Description Adjustment u/s. 92 CA (In Rs) 1 Manufacturing Segment 13,15,83,4222 2 Trading & Distribution 3,77,93,591 Segment

Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 340/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 340/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited. Bangalore Vs. Income Tax [Pan : Aadcr7773H] Circle-3(1) Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Nageswar Rao, Ld.Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/08/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 27/08/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08/02/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017- 18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Brought To The Notice Of The Bench That The Assessee Only Withdrew The Appeal Partially That Too Except Grounds No. 9

For Appellant: Sri Nageswar Rao, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

filed before your Honours for A.Y.2017-18 except to the extent pertaining to the grounds of objections (Ground No.9 to 11) raised against the transfer pricing adjustment towards payment for share / support services which are not covered in the resolution under MAP for A.Y.2017-18.” 4. The observations of the Ld.CIT

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 608/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle – 8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 43BSection 92

Length Price (ALP) of international transactions of the assessee with its AEs. The learned TPO vide its order dated 31.10.2016 has suggested certain transfer pricing adjustments towards downward adjustment to the value of imports and upward adjustment for brand development services. The Assessing Officer, in pursuant to directions ... passed draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.12.2016 and made transfer pricing adjustments as suggested by the TPO at Rs.179,07,77,331/-. The Assessing Officer had also proposed certain Corporate Tax adjustments including disallowances u/s.14A, r.w.r.8D of IT Rules, 1962, disallowance

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 589/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 589/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Income Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle -8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 43BSection 92

Length Price (ALP) of international transactions of the assessee with its AEs. The learned TPO vide its order dated 31.10.2018 has suggested certain transfer pricing adjustments towards upward adjustment for brand development services. The Assessing Officer, in pursuant to directions of the ld. 4. TPO, has passed draft assessment order ... u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 21.12.2018 and made transfer pricing adjustments as suggested by the TPO at Rs.212,26,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer had also proposed certain Corporate Tax adjustments including disallowances u/s.14A, r.w.r.8D of IT Rules, 1962, disallowance of subsidy received towards