“safe harbour”

CHANDRA LALIT SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Income Tax Officer, 25-26, 6Th Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), Western Court Building, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 83, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400012. Marine Drive, Mumbai-400002. Pan : Acips3131J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

always be bonafide variations, though to a certain limited extent, in these estimations. Unless, therefore, some kind of a tolerance band or a safe harbour provision, in respect of such bonafide variations, is implicit in the scheme of law, the assessees are bound to face undue hardships. The mechanism under ... Government, even though the initial tolerance band level was taken at 5%, in response to the representations by the stakeholders, this tolerance band, or safe harbour provision, was increased to 10%. There is no particular reason to justify any particular time frame for implementing this enhancement of tolerance band

AERO PACK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

ceases to operate, and no addition can be sustained on account of such marginal variation. The legislative intent behind introducing the safe harbour provision is to obviate precisely such inconsequential adjustments arising from minor valuation differences, and the present case squarely falls within that protective ambit. 8. In these circumstances

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

both\nAEs and the appellant to provide such financial guarantee.\n1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in\ndisregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states\nthat performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate\nguarantee.\n1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect ... income, assets or losses of the assessee and the same\nwas of the nature of shareholder activity. It is also submitted\nthat in the Safe Harbour Rules Rule 10TA it is referred as\nunder:\n14\nITA No.1150, 1211, 1149&1217/Mum/2025\n Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014\n\"(c) corporates

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

both\nAEs and the appellant to provide such financial guarantee.\n1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in\ndisregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states\nthat performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate\nguarantee.\n1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect ... income, assets or losses of the assessee and the same\nwas of the nature of shareholder activity. It is also submitted\nthat in the Safe Harbour Rules Rule 10TA it is referred as\nunder:\n14\nITA No.1150, 1211, 1149&1217/Mum/2025\n Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014\n\"(c) corporates

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

both AEs and the appellant to provide such financial guarantee. 1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect ... income, assets or losses of the assessee and the same was of the nature of shareholder activity. It is also submitted that in the Safe Harbour Rules – Rule 10TA it is referred as under: Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 “(c) corporates guarantee means explicit corporate guarantee extended

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

both AEs and the appellant to provide such financial guarantee. 1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect ... income, assets or losses of the assessee and the same was of the nature of shareholder activity. It is also submitted that in the Safe Harbour Rules – Rule 10TA it is referred as under: Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 “(c) corporates guarantee means explicit corporate guarantee extended

VIRAJ SOLAR MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST WEST FLYOVERMUMBA vs. ITO 8(3)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Viraj Solar Maharashtra Private Limited Ito, 8(3)(1), Mumbai 406, Hubtown Solaris, N.S. Phadke Marg, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai, Andheri East West Flyover, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Maharashtra-400069. [Pan:Aadvc 4415 A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

ordinary profit The TPO rejected the contentions of the assessee and distinguished the various case laws relied by the assessee, he invoked the Safe Harbour Rules. Accordingly, he proceeded to determine the adjustment of non-payment of interest to VSMPL to the extent of Rs.8,75,508/- by inferring that

AAMIR KHATRI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

specific term “operating income”. Therefore we refer to other related Enactments/Rules to decipher the meaning of the aforesaid term. In this regard, the Safe Harbour Rules 10TA (1)(i) defines “operating revenue” in an inclusive manner to mean “the revenue earned by the assessee in the previous year in relation

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

nconsider it appropriate to finally determine the arm's length\ninterest rate ourselves, in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, by\ndrawing guidance from the Safe Harbour Rules, rather than\nrestoring the matter for reconsideration.\n9. 9. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to adopt a fixed\ndefault rate of interest ... drawing guidance from the OECD\nTransfer Pricing Guidelines, 2017, and the Safe Harbour Rules\nframed under section 92CB read with Rules 10TA to 10TG of the\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962. Even though the assessee has not\nformally exercised the safe harbour option under Rule 10TG, the\nprinciples embodied in section

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

nconsider it appropriate to finally determine the arm's length\ninterest rate ourselves, in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, by\ndrawing guidance from the Safe Harbour Rules, rather than\nrestoring the matter for reconsideration.\n9. 9. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to adopt a fixed\ndefault rate of interest ... drawing guidance from the OECD\nTransfer Pricing Guidelines, 2017, and the Safe Harbour Rules\nframed under section 92CB read with Rules 10TA to 10TG of the\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962. Even though the assessee has not\nformally exercised the safe harbour option under Rule 10TG, the\nprinciples embodied in section

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

consider it appropriate to finally determine the arm’s length interest rate ourselves, in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, by drawing guidance from the Safe Harbour Rules, rather than restoring the matter for reconsideration. 9.9. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to adopt a fixed default rate of interest ... drawing guidance from the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2017, and the Safe Harbour Rules framed under section 92CB read with Rules 10TA to 10TG of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Even though the assessee has not formally exercised the safe harbour option under Rule 10TG, the principles embodied in section

KANTAR ANALYTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIREFLY MARKET RESERCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF ANALYTICS QUOTIENT SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

industry standards. In this regard, the following aspects of the Organization for\nEconomic Co-operation and Development 2017 Guidelines as well as the Indian safe-harbour\nregulations may be of relevance.\nParagraph 7.45 of the OECD Guidelines define the Low Value adding Intra Group Services\n('LVIGS') as services performed ... processing of natural resources; and\nj. insurance and reinsurance\n27 CBDT Notification No. 46/2017/F. No. 370142/6/2017-TPL\nK\nCertified True Copy\nCe Karnik Kansara\nThe safe harbour rates for receipt of LVIGS has been prescribed at a mark-up not exceeding 5 per\ncent, wherein the aggregate value of international transactions