“interest on outstanding receivables”

Transfer PricingSection 92BSection 92B244 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest on outstanding receivables is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), cited in 422 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest on outstanding receivables

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. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.

55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court

273

citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

398 ITR 66 · 2017 · High Court

100

citing judgments

Not every item of receivables appearing in the accounts of an entity dealing with foreign associated enterprises automatically constitutes an international transaction under Section 92B. A separate adjustment for interest on outstanding receivables is not permissible if the working capital adjustment has already factored in their impact.

CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd.

215 Taxmann 108 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

The provision of an extended credit period or non-charging of interest on delayed receivables from associated enterprises constitutes an international transaction under Section 92B(1) and requires separate benchmarking at arm's length, even retrospectively due to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment.

Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

398 ITR 120 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that a detailed functional and working capital analysis, considering various factors, is essential before treating outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction for transfer pricing adjustments on notional interest. Simply making an adjustment based on receivables alone without such study distorts the transaction's character.

348 (Mum.); Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

21 Taxmann.com 6 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

The use of LIBOR is upheld for benchmarking loans or advances given to foreign Associated Enterprises (AEs), and notional interest is to be computed using LIBOR rates for transfer pricing adjustments on amounts receivable from AEs.

Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

62 Taxmann.com 79 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Interest cannot be separately charged on outstanding receivables from an associated enterprise if these receivables are an integral part of the underlying international transaction for which the arm's length price has already been determined. Such outstanding receivables are not considered a distinct international transaction.

CIT v. Indo American Jewellery Ltd.

44 Taxmann.com 310 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

A transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed receivables from an Associated Enterprise (AE) may not be warranted if the assessee consistently does not charge interest from both AEs and non-AEs.

Judgments citing interest on outstanding receivables

Ametek Instruments India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 432/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.432/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S. Ametek Instruments India The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Benguluru. Plot No.1, Epip Industrial Area, Divyashree Nr Enclave, 4Th Floor Block A, Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aahca2869B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

following grounds:- (i) Upper Turnover filter (Ground 14) (ii) Exclusion of companies (SWD Segment) Ground 21 (iii) Working capital adjustment (Ground 19) (iv) Interest on outstanding receivable (Ground 24-31) We shall adjudicate the above grounds as under:- Ground 14 (Upper Turnover Filter) 6. In the above ground, the assessee ... arriving at the ALP. It is ordered accordingly. 8.4 In the result, ground 19 is allowed for statistical purpose. Grounds 24 to 31 (Interest on Outstanding Receivables) 9. The assessee has submitted that no benchmarking analysis was done by the TPO, which is mandate of the law. It is also

M/S Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3403/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

order dated 21.5.2020 this Tribunal held as under:- “23. Ground No. 14-17 alleged by assessee against adjustment of notional interest on outstanding receivables. From TP study, it is observed that payments to assessee are not contingent upon payment received by AEs from their respective customers. Further Ld.AR submitted that ... been accounted for. Alternatively, he submitted that working capital subsumes sundry creditors and therefore separate addition is not called for. 23.1. Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables under weighted average method using LIBOR + 300 basis points applicable for year under consideration that worked out to 3.3758% on receivables that exceeded

M/S. Maxim Integrated Products India Sales Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 208/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92C

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the treatment of interest on outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction is not warranted as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee is having such profitability which is well within ... order dated 21.5.2020 this Tribunal held as under:- “23. Ground No. 14-17 alleged by assessee against adjustment of notional interest on outstanding receivables. From TP study, it is observed that payments to assessee are not contingent upon payment received by AEs from their respective customers. Further Ld.AR submitted that

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

ITA 233/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.233/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. No.165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Magnum, Circle – 7(1)(1), Doraisani Palya, Iim Post, Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru-560 076. Pan : Aafca 8051 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

learned AR are as follows:- (a) The weighted average method adopted by TPO is incorrect. (b) The assessee has not charged interest on outstanding receivables, both from AEs and Non-AEs and hence the Benchmarking analysis should be done with uncontrolled transactions and not by adopting an arbitrary number

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

well as foreign AEs. 14.The learned DRP/AO/TPO have erred in law and facts by determining a transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables amounting to INR 83,55,708. 15.The learned DRP/AO/TPO have erred, in law and in facts, by not appreciating that the outstanding trade receivables ... learned DRP/AO /TPO have erred, in law and in facts, by adopting the SBI short term deposit interest rate to compute the notional interest on outstanding receivable as on 31 March 2016. 18.Without prejudice to our grounds above, the learned DRP/AO/TPO have erred, in law and in facts

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1579/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR

Section 1Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 801CSection 80ISection 921

corporate guarantees given by the Appellant on behalf of its Associated Enterprises is highly arbitrary and excessive and needs to be reduced substantially. Interest on Outstanding Receivables from the A.E. 18. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the M/s Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai. re-characterisation of outstanding ... corporate guarantee commission percentage is on the higher side on comparing to the industry standard and the charging of interest on outstanding receivables from AE is not a prudent practice.(iv) the disallowance computed u/sec14A r.w.r8D(2) is not in accordance with the IT rules and no exempt income

Netapp India Marketing and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 181/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri G.C. Srivastava, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)

necessary details to support the claim of working capital adjustment. 8. The next issue relates to transfer pricing adjustment made by way of interest on outstanding receivables. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the TPO has computed the interest without determining the actual days of delay, reasons for the delay ... assessee did not furnish the details as called for by TPO in this regard and hence, the TPO was constrained to compute the interest on outstanding receivables on adhoc basis. However, we find merit in the submission of Ld. A.R. that the interest has to be computed only for actual

M/S. Biocon Research Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2612/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)

grounds urged by the assessee give rise to the following issues:- (a) Transfer pricing adjustment made on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables. (b) Addition on account of reimbursements receivable from M/s Mylan. (c) Alternative contention for enhanced deduction u/s 10AA of the Act, if any of the addition

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7992/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Akshita BhandariFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

these circumstances, the principle of commercial expediency would not come into play. Therefore, in our view, as the assessee has not charged interest on outstanding receivables from the overseas subsidiaries, arm's length price of the same has to be determined. Having held so, it is necessary to quantify

Anz Support Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92BSection 92B(1)Section 92C

giving effect to the directions of the DRP. 5. The issue for consideration is determining the transfer pricing adjustment on account of the interest on outstanding receivables amounting to Rs.2,17,00,959. The assessee raised the following grounds in this regard (i) The learned AO has erred in assessing ... characterizing the outstanding receivable as on 31st March 2015 as a loan transaction and determining transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables mounting to INR 2,17,00,959 (iv) Without prejudice to our ground of appeal number 3 above The learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred

M/S Talisma Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2499/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Olympia The Deputy Building, Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C V Raman Nagar, Circle 7 (1)(1), Byrasandra Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Talisma Corporation Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned A01 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 (The Act") On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law: 1. The Learned Ao/ Transfer Pricing Officer (.Tpo') Erred. In Law & In Facts. In Making An Addition Of Inr 1,44.13,409

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)

Goodrich Aerospace Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 566/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd., 14/1 & 15/1, The Deputy Maruthi Industrial Commissioner Of Estate, Income Tax, Phase 2, Hoody Village, Circle – 3 (1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aaacb8857H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Hereinafter Taken By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. I. Transfer Pricing 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao"), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Learned Tpo") & The Honourable Dispute

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 40Section 92BSection 92C

which ought to have been netted off from the outstanding receivables from AEs before proposing TP adjustment in connection with notional interest on outstanding receivables from AEs.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a company providing Assembly / Manufacturing activity and Engineering Design Services ... which worked out to 5.87%, leading to an adjustment of INR 1,72,72,093/-. The Ld.TPO proposed the adjustment in respect of Interest on Outstanding Receivables – INR 1,72,72,093/-. The Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO on interest on receivables

M/S Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3133/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3133/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 65/2, Bagmane Laurel, Commissioner Of Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C.V Raman Nagar, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 093. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcc2470Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92D

transactions of INR 111,953,486 in respect of software development services and INR 39,529,834 on account of imputation of notional interest on outstanding receivables. The learned DRP erred in further enhancing the adjustment in respect of Appellant's software development services ... confirming the adjustment of INR 39,529,834 in respect of notional interest on outstanding receivables. (Tax Effect: INR 59,987,559) Grounds for software development services 4. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, with respect to adjustment to the transfer price

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Research and development services ("R&D"):- Rs.1,33,15,066/-; 3. Royalty Payment:- Rs. 8,99,53,689/-; and. 4. Interest on Outstanding receivables:- Rs.24,30,00,000/-. 1. Software Development Services 1.1 The learned TPO and the learned AO grossly erred in law and facts of the case ... already been accounted for. Alternatively, he submitted that working capital subsumes sundry creditors and therefore separate addition is not called for. Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables at the rate equal to 10% on the receivables that exceeded 6 months. It has been argued by Ld.AR that authorities below disregarded

Yash Jwellery P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1733/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Amod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Tajinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing present appeal. 6. On merits, the only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is regarding charging of notional interest on outstanding receivables from its Associated Enterprises. 7. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from the records are: The assessee

Global E Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 418/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)

reject argument advanced by Ld.AR. 3.5.7. Alternatively, it has been argued that working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and loans an advances to international transaction would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case IT(TP)A No.418 & 250/Bang/2016 Page

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Global E- Business Operations Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 250/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)

Dhr Holding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 1614/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 92BSection 92C

calculation of operating margin of the trading segment which has otherwise been considered as arm's length by the Ld. TPO himself. Interest on Outstanding Receivables (adjustment of INR 4,48,739) 3. On facts and in law, the DRP/ Ld. TPO has erred in not appreciating that the outstanding ... services and marketing support services to its AEs. The dispute during the year is confined to (i) Purchase of medical equipment and (ii) Interest on outstanding receivables. 4. At the outset the Ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that Ground No. 1 is general, and that Ground

Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle- 3, Gurgaon

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

ITA 851/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 92CSection 92D

alleged excess credit period without the same being referred by the Ld. AO under Section 92CA(i) of the Act; 4.3 by charging interest on outstanding receivables, despite the fact that the Appellant had carried out working capital adjustment and hence, no further adjustment on account of interest on outstanding ... also upheld the adjustment proposed by the learned TPO. 6.2 Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that issue of interest on outstanding receivables has been adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2014-15 (ITA No. 6751/Del/2018) and assessment year