← 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

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

For Appellant: Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 92CSection 92C(4)

DCIT, CC-8(3) A. Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. erred in upholding the learned TPO's contentions for making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.11,91,65,955 under Section 92C(4) of the Act to the total income of the Appellant on the premise that the international transactions entered ... which was offered to tax and has been taxed in the revised return of income has not been considered while computing the transfer pricing adjustment Payment made for availing consultancy services 11. erred in upholding the learned TPO's action of determining the arm's length price of the international

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6718/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6718/Mum/2012 (िन.व. 2008-09) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 7(3), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & A.K.Jawadwala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By :Shri Anand Mohan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate with S/Shri Vibhu Jain and A.K.JawadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 80I

gain of capital nature from profits of business; Ground No.12: Computation of Book Profit under section 115JB of the Act; Ground No. 13: Transfer Pricing Adjustment- on reimbursement of salary and related costs of seconded employees; Ground No.14: Non-grant of full credit in respect of Tax Deducted at Source ... directions has recorded the issue, however, the same remain to be adjudicated. 3.2. In respect of ground No.13 elating to the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of reimbursement of salary related cost on the deputation of personnel to India,the ld.Counsel for the assessee submits, that five employees were seconded

Veritas (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1896/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1896/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) M/S. Veritas (India) Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) 701, Embassy Centre, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Floor, Air India Building 400021. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1654J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gaurav Kabra Revenue By: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2019 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A, R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. First Of All, We Will Deal With The Ground No. 2 & 3, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao To Have Made An Addition On Account Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment Of Rs.1,93,43,532/- (On Account Of Share Application Money) & Rs.1,32,99,750/- (On Account Of Guarantee Commission) & Are Noted To Be Emanating From The Transfer Pricing Order (Tpo) Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 92Ca(3) Of The Act. According To The Ld. Ar, The Tpo Order Is Bad In Law Because The Assessee Has Filed The Original Return Of Income On 29.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

ground no. 2 & 3, wherein the assessee has challenged the action of the AO to have made an addition on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.1,93,43,532/- (on account of share application money) and Rs.1,32,99,750/- (on account of Guarantee Commission) and are noted