← All Phrases

“related party transaction”

DisallowancesSection 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)490 judgments

The decision most relied on for related party transaction is Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT (38 ITR 601), cited in 346 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on related party transaction

Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT
38 ITR 601 · 1960 · Supreme Court
346
citing judgments

Expenditure must be commercially expedient for carrying on the business, and it is not for revenue authorities to dictate how an assessee should conduct its business. The court will not question the business expediency of a transaction, even if a third party also benefits.

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
118 ITR 261 · 1979 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT
34 Taxmann.com 19 · 2013 · ITAT
64
citing judgments

A transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantees provided by an Indian entity to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) where no fees are charged can be estimated at approximately 0.20%. The arm's length principle applies to such intra-group corporate guarantee transactions.

Knorr-Bremse India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
380 ITR 307 · 2016 · High Court
63
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.

Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel v. CIT
31 Taxmann.com 50 · 2013 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Documents found in the possession of a searched person are presumed to belong to that person under Section 132(4A) and do not automatically belong to a third party merely because the transactions recorded therein pertain to or relate to such third party.

Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT
53 SOT 159 · 2012 · ITAT
57
citing judgments

Companies with significantly different turnovers (e.g., one above Rs. 200 crores and another below) cannot be considered comparable in transfer pricing analysis. Turnover is a relevant factor in assessing comparability.

CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds
261 ITR 258 · 2003 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The assessee bears the initial burden to maintain and produce authentic documentation under Section 92D and Rule 10D to justify transactions with related parties, especially concerning the arm's length price for such transactions under Section 40A(2)(b). The discharge of this statutory obligation to maintain accurate data is a mandatory requirement of law.

CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co.
357 ITR 396 · 2013 · High Court
48
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to credit for TDS even if the certificate is issued in the name of a joint venture or related party, provided the income to which the TDS relates is offered by the assessee. This principle emphasizes looking at the substance of the transaction over strict adherence to the name on the TDS certificate.

Judgments citing related party transaction

Income Tax Officer, Vejapur vs. Darshan Orna Limited, Navrangpura

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1606/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1606/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Darshan Orna Limited बनाम/ Vejalpur 102, Shri Balaju Paragon V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 C.G. Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcd 7142 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Shri Satish Vadilal Seth, and that these transactions indicated a diversion of funds rather than deployment for business operations. In examining the related party transactions, the AO further noted that although substantial purchases amounting to Rs.4,51,55,796/- were recorded from M/s. Veeram Spiritual Energies Pvt. Ltd., no purchase ... invoices or supporting bills were furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. Importantly, despite the requirement under the Companies Act, 2013, to report related party transactions in the Board’s Report and to disclose the same in the audited financial statements, it was found that the assessee's Annual Report

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 768/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

there was sales inflation with respect to an entity M/s Hemlata Enterprises resulting in excess claim of 80-IC deduction. Upon perusal of related party transactions as reported in tax audit report, it was observed by Ld. AO that the assessee paid remuneration and commission to its Managing Director

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 767/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

there was sales inflation with respect to an entity M/s Hemlata Enterprises resulting in excess claim of 80-IC deduction. Upon perusal of related party transactions as reported in tax audit report, it was observed by Ld. AO that the assessee paid remuneration and commission to its Managing Director

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 766/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

there was sales inflation with respect to an entity M/s Hemlata Enterprises resulting in excess claim of 80-IC deduction. Upon perusal of related party transactions as reported in tax audit report, it was observed by Ld. AO that the assessee paid remuneration and commission to its Managing Director

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cavincare Pvt Ltd., Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.766/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.767/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.768/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Cavinkare Private Limited बनाम/ 12, Cavin Ville, Cenotaph Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacb-3754-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate) – Ld.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

there was sales inflation with respect to an entity M/s Hemlata Enterprises resulting in excess claim of 80-IC deduction. Upon perusal of related party transactions as reported in tax audit report, it was observed by Ld. AO that the assessee paid remuneration and commission to its Managing Director