“aggregation of transactions”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C46 judgments

The decision most relied on for aggregation of transactions is UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT (121 ITD 131), cited in 70 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on aggregation of transactions

UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT

121 ITD 131 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, distinct international transactions, such as royalty payments and manufacturing, should be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated. The selection of comparables must be based on a thorough Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis, and loss-making entities are not automatically excluded if they satisfy other comparability criteria.

Knorr-Bremse India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

380 ITR 307 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

When transactions are part of a package deal with a composite price or are interdependent such that an assessee must accept all of them together, they must be aggregated and treated as a single international transaction for transfer pricing purposes.

CIT v. Concord Commercial Pvt. Ltd.

95 ITD 117 · 2005 · ITAT

citing judgments

The aggregate of business profits and losses from derivative transactions must be worked out before applying the Explanation to Section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This means that trading of shares and derivative transactions are not considered speculative transactions under Section 43(5) for the purposes of Sections 28 to 41.

Star India P. Ltd. v. ACIT

317 ITR 292 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

When analyzing international transactions, separate classes of transactions, such as fees for technical know-how, use of trademarks, and procurement, must be analyzed individually, as each impacts profits. Aggregation of such transactions is not permissible.

Cummins India Ltd. v. Addl CIT

53 Taxmann.com 53 · 2015 · ITAT

citing judgments

Closely linked transactions between associated enterprises can be aggregated and treated as a single transaction for the purpose of determining the arm's length price, with the appropriate method then applied to this composite transaction.

LG Electronics Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

22 ITR (Trib) 1 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer may determine the arm's length price (ALP) of an international transaction, including aggregated advertising and marketing promotion (AMP) expenses, in light of the Special Bench decision in LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT.

Judgments citing aggregation of transactions

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)

therefore, selected TNMM as most appropriate method to benchmark the international transactions. The TPO, however, rejected entity level benchmarking using TNMM by adopting aggregation of transaction approach followed by the Appellant. According to 5 Assessment Year: 2012-13 TPO, the Appellant had failed to provide any justification for deviation ... Draft Assessment Order and contended that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Appellant had provided detailed reasons justifying the adoption of aggregation of transaction approach and TNMM as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions. However, the TPO/Assessing Officer disregarded the economic analysis conducted by the Appellant

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

separate international transaction to be benchmarked separately. In this regard, the TPO relied on various judicial pronouncements to hold that the aggregation of transactions is possible only when the underlying international transactions are continuously and closely inter-linked. For this purpose, according to him, it was essential for the taxpayer

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 695/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Similar the percentage of purchases from AE is only 9.01% as against 90.99% being the purchases from non-AE and giving circumstances the aggregation of transactions at an entity level is not appropriate. 4.8 He also submitted that the Ld.TPO did not restrict the adjustment to the international transaction only

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

primary international transactions under the three segments of the Assessee. The learned counsel in this regard drew support from the OECD Guidelines on aggregation of transactions which states as follows: “Ideally, in order to arrive at the most precise approximation of arm’s length conditions, the arm's length principle

Asus India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 9 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7831/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 40

pricing adjustment as the assessee's margin in respect of distribution services is within the permissible range. 5.8. The ld. DR argued that aggregation of transactions for benchmarking is resorted to when the prices and functions are so inextricably linked that one cannot survive without the other. He argued that

Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2580/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 274

time of hearing, the ld. AR alternatively argued the additional grounds stating that as per OECD guidelines and Indian Transfer Pricing provisions, aggregation of transactions could be made. For this purpose, he relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. v. Addl ... first issue arising in the present appeal is whether in view of the OECD guidelines and the Indian Transfer Pricing provisions, aggregation of transactions could be made or not. We find that Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Demag Cranes & Components (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) had elaborately considered the OECD