← All Phrases

“economic adjustment”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C88 judgments

The decision most relied on for economic adjustment is CIT v. Petro Araldite (P.) Ltd. (256 Taxmann 16), cited in 15 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on economic adjustment

CIT v. Petro Araldite (P.) Ltd.
256 Taxmann 16 · 2018 · High Court
15
citing judgments

Economic adjustments relating to capacity utilization and foreign exchange should be granted to the assessee when computing its margin under the TNMM.

Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
77 Taxmann.com 48 · 2017 · Reported
10
citing judgments

This case does not lay down a clear proposition of law based on the provided excerpts. The passages focus on listing other cases and describing the business of a company rather than stating a legal holding.

Judgments citing economic adjustment

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dc/Ac 4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 152/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

erred in computing transfer pricing adjustments not on proportionate basis which was consistently followed in earlier assessment years. 4.12. Not providing appropriate economic adjustments towards material differences between the operational profile of comparable companies and the appellant with respect to working capital adjustments. Grounds for disallowance of technical support services

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2014/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

achieved by the assessee for arm's length testing purposes. In doing so, the Ld. TPO Ld. AO erred in: 2.1. applying an alleged economic adjustment on account of difference in intensity of functions based upon "Other Expenses/ Sales" ratio, which has no legal sanction under the Indian TP provisions ... furnished by the assessee for calculating the Profit Level Indicator ("PLI") of distribution segment in case of the tested party thereby not allowing the economic adjustments of certain non-operation implicit expenses and other scientifically carried allocations; 5. That on facts and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO while

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Schneider Electric It Business India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 185/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.185/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92D

furnished by the Appellant on a without prejudice basis; 4.8. disregarding the corrected margins of comparable companies submitted by the Appellant; 4.9. disregarding various economic adjustments including working capital adjustment in determining the arm's length profit margin; and 4.10. disregarding judicial pronouncements in India while undertaking the TP adjustment ... consider the correct margin of the comparables. 10. Ground No.4.9 of the assessee’s appeal is reproduced below:- “4.9. disregarding various economic adjustments including working capital adjustment in determining the arm's length profit margin.” IT(TP)A No.185/Bang/2022 Schneider Electric IT Business India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

alleged excessive AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant. 1.23. The Honorable DRP, learned AO and TPO have erred in not granting appropriate favourable economic adjustments (including the working capital adjustment) when assessing the arm's length nature of alleged international transaction of provision of AMP services. 1.24. The Honorable

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

import of finished goods for distribution without providing any cogent reasons for the rejection of RPM. 3. Without prejudice erred in not appreciating the economic adjustment made due to devaluation of currency On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred ... appreciating the economic adjustment made due to devaluation of Indian currency vis-à-vis foreign currency as appellant majorly imports its finished goods from associated enterprises in foreign currency. 4. Without prejudice erred in not appreciating the business reasons for losses On the facts and in the circumstances

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 73/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

taken on record. 10. Ground No.5 reads as follows:- “5. The learned AO/ learned TPO / Hon’ble DRP has erred in not granting economic adjustments towards adverse effect of forex due to depreciation of Indian Rupees resulting in incremental import costs which is not attributable to the transfer pricing ... would demonstrate that the loss has arisen solely on account of exchange fluctuation which warrants adjustment in TP for comparables. The details of the economic adjustment claimed on account of adverse fluctuation in foreign currency is furnished at pages 37-213 of the additional evidence compilation

Liebherr India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2169/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

erred in making transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the entire value of the international transaction of import of spares and machines without providing economic adjustments for custom duty adjustment and closing stock adjustment. The DRP disposed of the objections filed by the Appellant vide order, dated 28.12.2016, and issued ... method for determining ALP for the international transaction pertaining to trading segment. The DRP also confirmed the order of TPO by not granting economic adjustments, i.e., custom duty adjustment and closing stock adjustment, claimed by the Appellant. The objections of the Appellant against the disallowance

Clsa India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Clsa India Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 4(1), 8/F Dalamal House, Room No.640, Aayakar Nariman Point, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai–400 021 Mumbai–400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc2262K Assessee By : S/Shri Mukesh Butani, Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar, Mr. Harsh R Shah, Shreyash Shah Revenue By : Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh ButaniFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

respect of non-Direct Market Access ('DMA') transactions. 5.2.inappropriately applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method while computing the ALP. 5.3.not granting appropriate economic adjustments in order to eliminate the differences in the Functions, Assets and Risk ('FAR') profile of the transactions undertaken with

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

No.300/Bang/2021 Page 20 of 44 for working capital adjustment is supported by the OECD guidelines as well. 47. The grant of economic adjustments such as working capital adjustment was also allowed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., 126 taxmann.com

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 92C

price of the international transactions of import of raw materials from AEs and export of finished goods to AEs without taking into consideration the economic adjustments on account of the difference in the functions performed and risk assumed (including differences in working capital employed) between the tested party (Appellant

Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 519/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 201Section 40aSection 92C

rejecting the additional evidence taken by learned AO /TPO / DRP is erroneous. The learned AO / TPO / DRP has grossly erred in disregarding the economic adjustments i.e. capacity utilization adjustment being performed and applied by Mahindra Trucks & Buses Ltd.; AY 13-14 the appellant to operating margins earned by it under

M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2327/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2327/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Plot No.365, Sompura 1St Stage Kiadb Industrial Area Dobbaspet, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural Dist – 562 111. Pan : Aadct0271C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Assessee has submitted that due to adverse foreign exchange fluctuations, import cost of raw materials have increased considerably. The Assessee has therefore claimed economic adjustment towards Forex fluctuations.  The assessee has submitted that if the rates of depreciation are different between the tested party and the comparable companies, an adjustment

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

import cost could not be passed on to the end customer due to competitive environment in the industry. The assessee has therefore claimed economic adjustment towards Forex fluctuations. The assessee has relied on the order of the ITAT in the case of Honda Trading Corporation India Private Limited

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

import cost could not be passed on to the end customer due to competitive environment in the industry. The assessee has therefore claimed economic adjustment towards Forex fluctuations. The assessee has relied on the order of the ITAT in the case of Honda Trading Corporation India Private Limited

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Limited 2.6. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon’ble DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in law by not granting appropriate favourable economic adjustments (including the working capital adjustment) from the arithmetic mean margin computed for benchmarking under the TNMM for the manufacturing segment. Other grounds ... alleged excessive AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant. 3.2.16 The Hon’ble DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in not granting appropriate favourable economic adjustments (including the working capital adjustment) when assessing the arm’s length nature of alleged international transaction of the Appellant

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

years, that the fluctuation in the Indian rupee in FY 2013-14 was anomalous, and accordingly, a forex adjustment in the nature of an economic adjustment discussed under Rule 10B(3)(ii) of the IT Rules, is imperative. Reference in this regard was made to Appendix K of Assessee

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

length price. B. Testing Services: 5. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not considering the economic adjustments made to the margins of the Appellant in the testing services segment. 6. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not appreciating ... transactions with AE should alone be the subject matter of determination of ALP and not the entire transaction. Lastly, it was submitted that economic adjustment like working capital adjustment, capacity utilization adjustment and other adjustments ought to be allowed while determining the margins of Assessee and comparable companies as mandated

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

length price. B. Testing Services: 5. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not considering the economic adjustments made to the margins of the Appellant in the testing services segment. 6. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not appreciating ... transactions with AE should alone be the subject matter of determination of ALP and not the entire transaction. Lastly, it was submitted that economic adjustment like working capital adjustment, capacity utilization adjustment and other adjustments ought to be allowed while determining the margins of Assessee and comparable companies as mandated

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

length price. B. Testing Services: 5. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not considering the economic adjustments made to the margins of the Appellant in the testing services segment. 6. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not appreciating ... transactions with AE should alone be the subject matter of determination of ALP and not the entire transaction. Lastly, it was submitted that economic adjustment like working capital adjustment, capacity utilization adjustment and other adjustments ought to be allowed while determining the margins of Assessee and comparable companies as mandated