← 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

Ness Technologies (India) P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. The Addl/Jt/Asstt, /ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1084/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1084/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Ness Digital Engineering बिधम/ The (India) Pvt. Ltd. Addl/Jt./Dy./Acit/Ito, Vs. (Formerly Known As Ness National E-Assessment Technologies (India) Pvt. Centre, Delhi. Ltd. Unit No. 201, 2Nd Office Floor, Building No. 5 & 6, Mindspace Sez, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca9649L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Samual Pitta (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order By The Assessing Officer (Ao)/(National E- Assessment Central. Delhi) Dated 19.04.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Sole Issue (Even Though The Assessee Has Raised Ground Nos. 1 To 8) Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Drp In Confirming The Transfer Pricing Adjustment (Tpa) Of Rs.73,69,403/- In Relation To International Transactions Of Reimbursement Of Expenses Received By The Assessee Company From Its Associate Enterprises (Ae).

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Samual Pitta (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

sole issue (even though the assessee has raised ground nos. 1 to 8) is against the action of the AO/DRP in confirming the Transfer Pricing Adjustment (TPA) of Rs.73,69,403/- in relation to International Transactions of reimbursement of expenses received by the assessee company from its Associate Enterprises ... rebutted by the Revenue before us is to the effect that in similar situation, from assessment year 2004-05 to 2010-11, no transfer pricing adjustment has been made by the Assessing Officer in relation to the International Transactions on recovery of expenses. 13.4 Another aspect which emerges from

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2858/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

against returned income of Rs 2,46,19,280/-. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS ITA no.1002&2858/Mum/2016 Diageo India Private Limited; A.Y. 11–12 TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES 2. erred in making an adjustment to the total income of the Assessee to the extent ... international transactions, if the same is within the range, should be allowed. 12. without prejudice to the above, erred in computing transfer pricing adjustment on total transactions pertaining to manufacturing segment without appreciating that the adjustment should be restricted to international transactions entered into with Associated Enterprises only Distribution segment

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

against returned income of Rs 2,46,19,280/-. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS ITA no.1002&2858/Mum/2016 Diageo India Private Limited; A.Y. 11–12 TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES 2. erred in making an adjustment to the total income of the Assessee to the extent ... international transactions, if the same is within the range, should be allowed. 12. without prejudice to the above, erred in computing transfer pricing adjustment on total transactions pertaining to manufacturing segment without appreciating that the adjustment should be restricted to international transactions entered into with Associated Enterprises only Distribution segment

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub- section (3) of92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), thereby proposing a transfer pricing adjustment of INR 63,27,41,494 under section 92CA of the Act. Adjustment pertaining to Advertisement Marketing and Promotional ("AMP") expenses 2. The Learned ... assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013- 2014 and 2015-2016 (supra). We shall adjudicate the grounds / issues are as under:- A Transfer Pricing Adjustment 7. Ground 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not call for any specific adjudication. Hence, the same is dismissed