← All Phrases

“safe harbour”

Chapter X - Transfer Pricing / Anti-AvoidanceSection 92CBSection 92CB / Rule 10TIA, 10TIB, 10TIC182 judgments

The decision most relied on for safe harbour is Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) (123 Taxmann.com 252), cited in 65 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on safe harbour

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)
123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT
65
citing judgments

The amendment introducing a tolerance band (safe harbour) under section 50C, allowing a difference of up to 10% between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, applies retrospectively. If the difference falls within this limit, the actual sale consideration is adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains.

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 safe harbour

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 245/CHNY/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Pan: Aabch 8089G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca : 15.07.2025 : 01.08.2025 आदेश /Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shriprop Properties Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1283/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

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 ... safe harbour provision. The reasons assigned by the CBDT, i.e., "the variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration received can occur in respect of similar properties in the same area because of a variety of factors, including the shape of the plot or location," was as much valid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Spl Shelters Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1273/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

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 ... safe harbour provision. The reasons assigned by the CBDT, i.e., "the variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration received can occur in respect of similar properties in the same area because of a variety of factors, including the shape of the plot or location," was as much valid

Shriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1173/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

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 ... safe harbour provision. The reasons assigned by the CBDT, i.e., "the variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration received can occur in respect of similar properties in the same area because of a variety of factors, including the shape of the plot or location," was as much valid

Spl Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

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 ... safe harbour provision. The reasons assigned by the CBDT, i.e., "the variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration received can occur in respect of similar properties in the same area because of a variety of factors, including the shape of the plot or location," was as much valid

Daido India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon

ITA 5761/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

1 ITA No. 5761/Del/2018 Daido India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘H

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), New Delhi vs. Rapid Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3522/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1226/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), O/O The Dcit, Central Circle 1(1) Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Vs. 110, Shantipally, Em By Pass Kolkata-700029, West Bengal Pin-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct4058P Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborty, DR
Section 14ASection 50Section 50C

deleting the income under the head capital gains to the tune of Rs. 1,91,83,329/- and allowing the assessee's claim of safe harbour rule of 5% variation between stamp duty value and sale consideration for the AY 2012-13 under 3rd proviso of Section 50C, when ... difference between the estimated value and the declared value was less than 5% of the declared value. Appellant in its submissions had claimed that safe harbour rule of 5%, as per the 3rd proviso to section 50C, would be applicable in its case in view of several judicial pronouncements. There

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: [Through Hybrid Hearing]For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 92C

decide the same in accordance with law. 11.2. Learned DR further referring to cash flow hedge revenue as operating income submitted that, as per safe harbour rules, foreign currency loss is not operating in nature. Therefore, once foreign currency loss is not operating in nature, then, foreign currency gain also ... only on the ground that it linked to export sales because, the same expenditure/income may not be there in case of all comparables. Further, Safe Harbour Rules excludes foreign currency losses from the definition of ‘operating cost’. Once loss on foreign exchange is excluded, then, revenue also needs

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 663/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 92C

decide the same in accordance with law. 11.2. Learned DR further referring to cash flow hedge revenue as operating income submitted that, as per safe harbour rules, foreign currency loss is not operating in nature. Therefore, once foreign currency loss is not operating in nature, then, foreign currency gain also ... only on the ground that it linked to export sales because, the same expenditure/income may not be there in case of all comparables. Further, Safe Harbour Rules excludes foreign currency losses from the definition of ‘operating cost’. Once loss on foreign exchange is excluded, then, revenue also needs

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai. vs. M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 42/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 717/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Caterpillar India Private Tax, Limited, 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle- 3(3), V. Chennai – 600 034. Taramani Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. By Virtual ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Dated 07.03.2023. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For :-2-: It(Tp) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

nature as compared to comparables, and predominantly comprises of unrealized foreign exchange fluctuation loss/gain on restatement. 4(b) Erred in disregarding the definition of Safe Harbour Rules issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') which explicitly excludes loss/ gain arising on account of foreign exchange currency fluctuations

M/S Vodafone Global Services P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 660/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 156Section 270Section 92C(2)Section 92D

held that Foreign Exchange fluctuations cannot be treated as non- operating loss/gain. So far as the contentions made by ld. DR that under the Safe Harbour Rules, Foreign Exchange gains/losses are to be excluded, we on going through the decisions of Coordinate Bench, Delhi in the case of Validor Capital ... No.1961/Del/2015, order dated 22.11.2018 referred by ld. Counsel for the assessee, find that the Tribunal has held that Safe Harbour Rules are like presumptive taxation and if are not opted by the assessee those are not binding on the assessee. Similar view was also adopted by this Tribunal

Ucweb Mobile Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit, Inocome Tax Department, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3945/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)(d)Section 43(3)

computation of the ALP and the manner of the determination of the ALP by the TPO, and Section 92CB which provides for the "safe harbour” rules for determination of the ALP, can be applied only if the TP adjustment involves substitution of the transaction price with the ALP. Rules

Volkswagen Group Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Assessment Unit Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1950/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Volkswagen Group Technology V National Faceless Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., S Assessment Center, Embassy Techzone, 9Th Floor, Assessment Unit, Delhi. 1.3 Congo Building, Rajiv Gandhi, Infotech Park, Infotech Park Hinjavadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafcv1368L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

Transfer Pricing Study Report, Assessee has considered Foreign Exchange Gain as well as Foreign Exchange Loss operating income/expenditure. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer applied Safe Harbour Rules and held that Foreign Exchange Gain as operating income, whereas loss was considered as non-operating. 2.1 Ld.AR written submission as under ... operating in nature. 7.2. In the appeal before the DRP, the DRP in para 12.3 of its order has placed reliance on the Safe Harbour Rules (SH Rules) while deciding that foreign exchange gain/loss should be considered as non operating in nature. The DRP has also placed reliance on rulings

Natems Solar Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 140/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234Section 234A

LIBOR plus 200 basis points as CUP - as against benchmarking of the same by the assessee company adopting SBI- PLR, RBI Master Directions and Safe Harbour Rules; and (ii) benchmarking by the AO/TPO of the ALP of the interest on supplier’s credit paid/payable by the assessee company ... transfer pricing regulations. Apart from that, the assessee company had also benchmarked its aforesaid transaction based on the SBI-PLR, RBI Master directions and Safe Harbour Rules. 12.2 The TPO did not find favour with the benchmarking that was carried out by the assessee company regarding the payment of interest

Quinnox Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4299/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

segment the entire revenue was from exports. vi. The Appellant had earned an exceptionally low margin of 3.76% in the AE segment whereas the safe harbour rules prescribes margin of 18% for concerning SDS activities in the range of 100 Crores to 200 Crores. vii. Even though the internal TNMM ... segment the entire revenue was from exports. vi. The Appellant had earned an exceptionally low margin of 3.76% in the AE segment whereas the safe harbour rules prescribes margin of 18% for concerning SDS activities in the range of 100 Crores to 200 Crores. vii. Even though the internal TNMM

Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 92B

distinct from routine software development services. These services also fall within the definition of knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) services as published in the Safe Harbour by CBDT. He has relied upon the decisions as under: (i) M/s Kony IT Services Private Limited. (ii) M/s. Alcatel Lucent India

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 452/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Thus, the learned AR has submitted that even otherwise, the interest paid by the assessee on ECB is at arms length, in pursuance with Safe Harbour Rules provided under Income Tax Rules. The TPO has applied the case law, involving the issue of loan given by the assessee

DCIT, Cirlce- 1(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 165/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

commensurate with the reasonably expected benefits to the recipient. In addition, tax authorities might allow a fixed charge on intra-group services under safe harbour rules or a presumptive taxation regime, for instance where it is not practical to calculate an arm's length price for the performance of services

Kgk Creations Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 13 are allowed

ITA 6854/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalkgk Creations Private Limited Jurisdiction Assessing Officer Gj-10, Seepz Sez, Seepz S.O. Vs. (Jao) Mumbai 400096, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Pan No. Aabck0378H Bhawan, Mumbai Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee Represented By Shri Vijay Mehta Ca / Ar Department Represented By Shri Kiran Unavekar Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)

treated the same as non-operating in nature on the treated on relying Rule- 10TA. We find that such Rule 10TA pertains to Safe Harbour Rules, and such rules are applicable only when the assessee opted for it. We find that in series of decisions various bench of Tribunal