← 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. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

Shortfall being adjustment under Rs.28,87,079/- section 92CA The difference of Rs.28,87,079/- as determined above is the transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA. 29. The DRP confirmed the action of the TPO. In this appeal, the assessee seeks exclusion of 2 out of 6 comparable companies that ... Shortfall being adjustment under Rs.41,31,014/- section 92CA The difference of Rs. 41,31,014/- as determined above is the transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA. 32. The DRP confirmed the order of the AO. In this appeal, the assessee seeks exclusion of 3 comparable companies

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-7, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

Price 10,73,57,230 Shortfall being adjustment 10,73,57,230 The above shortfall of Rs.10,73,57,230 is treated as transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA in respect of ITES segment of the taxpayer's international transactions.” 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition suggested by the TPO which ... international transactions i.e., transactions with AE. 56. In view of the above transfer pricing provisions and various judicial precedents, we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 17. In the light of the decisions referred to above, we hold

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2042/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

Price 10,73,57,230 Shortfall being adjustment 10,73,57,230 The above shortfall of Rs.10,73,57,230 is treated as transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA in respect of ITES segment of the taxpayer's international transactions.” 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition suggested by the TPO which ... international transactions i.e., transactions with AE. 56. In view of the above transfer pricing provisions and various judicial precedents, we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 17. In the light of the decisions referred to above, we hold

Amicrop Management India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 2171/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

account. The Ld.TPO accordingly called upon assessee to file its submission in respect of the same. The Ld.TPO also proposed to carry out transfer pricing adjustment in case of the recovery of expenses by adding a markup of 14.72%. 2.5 The assessee submitted that the reimbursement of expenses ... examined from the above said angle of providing of/extending credit facility. If the reimbursements have been paid /received within reasonable period, then no transfer pricing adjustment is required, otherwise the same is called for. In our view, the following methodology may be adopted for this purpose, i.e., since there

Amicrop Management India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 210/BANG/2017[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

account. The Ld.TPO accordingly called upon assessee to file its submission in respect of the same. The Ld.TPO also proposed to carry out transfer pricing adjustment in case of the recovery of expenses by adding a markup of 14.72%. 2.5 The assessee submitted that the reimbursement of expenses ... examined from the above said angle of providing of/extending credit facility. If the reimbursements have been paid /received within reasonable period, then no transfer pricing adjustment is required, otherwise the same is called for. In our view, the following methodology may be adopted for this purpose, i.e., since there

Target Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 680/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 680/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy C2 Block, Manyata Embassy Commissioner Of Business Park-Sez Unit, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Nagawara Hobli, Hebbal, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan: Aaeca8990N Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 562/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Ms. Rashmi, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihally, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset The Ld.Ar At The Time Of Hearing Filed A Letter Dated 10/02/2022, Wherein It Is Submitted That Assessee Filed Application Under Article 27 Of India Us-Dtaa, For Initiation Of Map

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143(3)

agreed between the Competent Authorities. In that respect assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal filed by it before this Tribunal pertaining to entire transfer pricing adjustment proposed for year under consideration. Assessee thus in the letter dated 10/02/2022, seeks to withdraw its appeal in ITA no. 680/Bang/2016. Considering the above

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 562/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 680/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy C2 Block, Manyata Embassy Commissioner Of Business Park-Sez Unit, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Nagawara Hobli, Hebbal, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan: Aaeca8990N Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 562/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Ms. Rashmi, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihally, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset The Ld.Ar At The Time Of Hearing Filed A Letter Dated 10/02/2022, Wherein It Is Submitted That Assessee Filed Application Under Article 27 Of India Us-Dtaa, For Initiation Of Map

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143(3)

agreed between the Competent Authorities. In that respect assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal filed by it before this Tribunal pertaining to entire transfer pricing adjustment proposed for year under consideration. Assessee thus in the letter dated 10/02/2022, seeks to withdraw its appeal in ITA no. 680/Bang/2016. Considering the above

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

directions of the Hon’ble DRP. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal no 1 to 6 on corporate tax and Transfer pricing adjustments. Diamomnd Dye Chem Ltd, Mumbai At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR made submissions on the additional grounds of appeal and are admitted. The assessee ... Draft assessment order U/sec Diamomnd Dye Chem Ltd, Mumbai 143(3) r.w.s144C(1) of the Act dated 27-01-2014 was passed with transfer pricing adjustments, disallowance of depreciation on Racks, Adjustment of Closing stock U/sec145A of the Act and disallowance u/sec14A of the Act. 3. Against the draft assessment