← 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

ACIT 32 1, Mumbai vs. Vidhi Enterprises, Mumbai

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

ITA 2151/MUM/2024[2015 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal Shah
Section 147

variations, though to a certain limited extent, in these estimations. Unless, these estimations. Unless, therefore, some kind of a tolerance band or a safe harbour provision, in respect of therefore, some kind of a tolerance band or a safe harbour provision, in respect of 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 assessens are such bonafide variations, is implicit in the scheme of law, the assessens are such bonafide variations, is implicit in the scheme of law, the assessens are bound

Vidhi Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2060/MUM/2024[A.Y 2015-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal Shah
Section 147

variations, though to a certain limited extent, in these estimations. Unless, these estimations. Unless, therefore, some kind of a tolerance band or a safe harbour provision, in respect of therefore, some kind of a tolerance band or a safe harbour provision, in respect of 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 assessens are such bonafide variations, is implicit in the scheme of law, the assessens are such bonafide variations, is implicit in the scheme of law, the assessens are bound

Amit Shrivastav, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit - National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), The Appellant Pleaded That The Differential Was Less Than 10% But More Than 5% (Being The Tolerance Available For The Assessment Year In Question) & Hence For The Year Under Consideration The Safe Harbour Limit Of 5% Only Would Apply & Since The Impugned Amount Was More Than That Limit, He Sustained The Addition.

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

than 10% but more than 5% (being the tolerance available for the assessment year in question) and hence for the year under consideration the safe harbour limit of 5% only would apply and since the impugned amount was more than that limit, he sustained the addition. 2. Aggrieved with this ... that the differential in value to more than 5% and less than 10%. To see whether I.T.A. No.65/Kol/2024 Amit Shrivastav the amendment enhancing the safe harbour from 5% to 10% effected from 01.04.2021 could be applied to this year or not. In this regard, we are persuaded by the findings

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Ashiana Housing Limited, Kolkata

In the result, with these remarks, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1391/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 43C

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

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 498/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred in confirming the application of Safe Harbour Rules by the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the TPO"), for which option is available to the assessee only. 8. FOR THAT, without

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 181/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred in confirming the application of Safe Harbour Rules by the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the TPO"), for which option is available to the assessee only. 8. FOR THAT, without

Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7923/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Reuben Mathew Jacob, Sr. DR
Section 92C(2)Section 92D

argued that treating the same as non-operating in nature would amount to double taxation. The ld AR further submitted that the safe harbour rules are optional in nature and the assessee has not opted for the same. Further, without prejudice basis, it is mentioned that CBDT notification

Navin Ramesh Manshani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3570/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

that difference of Rs.660300/- between agreement value and value adopted by Stamp duty Authority is only 7.05% of agreement value, which is within the safe harbour limit of 10% as provided in section 56(2)(x) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Anilkumar Jagdishraj Seth, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 3378/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth, 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Flat No. 1201, Jeevan Satya Co-Op. Vs. Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Housing Society, 15Th Road, Plot No. Mumbai-400012. 411, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aobps 8150 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal

been held that "third proviso to section 50C(1) providing benefit has been held that "third proviso to section 50C(1) providing benefit of safe harbour limit of 5 percent as introduced by Finance Act, of safe harbour limit of 5 percent as introduced by Finance Act, of safe harbour

Amazon Development Centre (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tp), Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 795/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 263

same were not conducted during TP proceedings. 21. For the purpose of relevant guidance, Tribunals have referred to the definitions in provided in the safe harbour provisions under Rule IOTA of Income Tax Rules, :?62 as in the case of Sitel India Pvt Ltd. Vs„ PCIT (TS-400- ITAT2019 ... been held by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Sench In DCIT Vs. Minda Acoustic ".,,.a (ITA No. 1759/Del/2015) that the safe harbour rules can be taken as guidance as - "The assessee though has not applied for the Safe Harbor rules, but It always be adopted as guidance for interpretation of such

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tp), Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 762/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 263

same were not conducted during TP proceedings. 21. For the purpose of relevant guidance, Tribunals have referred to the definitions in provided in the safe harbour provisions under Rule IOTA of Income Tax Rules, :?62 as in the case of Sitel India Pvt Ltd. Vs„ PCIT (TS-400- ITAT2019 ... been held by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Sench In DCIT Vs. Minda Acoustic ".,,.a (ITA No. 1759/Del/2015) that the safe harbour rules can be taken as guidance as - "The assessee though has not applied for the Safe Harbor rules, but It always be adopted as guidance for interpretation of such

ACIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Yutaka Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2795/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

pronouncements relied by the Ld AR foreign exchange fluctuation operating and non operating items has not been defined in the TP provisions however in safe Harbour Yutaka Autoparts India Vs. ITO Rules operating and non operating items is not in Rule 10TA it is reproduced as under:- Rule 10TA ... provision written back (vi) extraordinary incomes and (vii) Other incomes not relating to normal operations of the assessee Though case is not covered by safe harbour rule it would be better to take the report as definition for operating revenue or non operating revenue from the Safe harbour Rules case

Yutaka Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2742/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

pronouncements relied by the Ld AR foreign exchange fluctuation operating and non operating items has not been defined in the TP provisions however in safe Harbour Yutaka Autoparts India Vs. ITO Rules operating and non operating items is not in Rule 10TA it is reproduced as under:- Rule 10TA ... provision written back (vi) extraordinary incomes and (vii) Other incomes not relating to normal operations of the assessee Though case is not covered by safe harbour rule it would be better to take the report as definition for operating revenue or non operating revenue from the Safe harbour Rules case

Yutaka Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1607/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

pronouncements relied by the Ld AR foreign exchange fluctuation operating and non operating items has not been defined in the TP provisions however in safe Harbour Yutaka Autoparts India Vs. ITO Rules operating and non operating items is not in Rule 10TA it is reproduced as under:- Rule 10TA ... provision written back (vi) extraordinary incomes and (vii) Other incomes not relating to normal operations of the assessee Though case is not covered by safe harbour rule it would be better to take the report as definition for operating revenue or non operating revenue from the Safe harbour Rules case

Aaeshka Riddhi Realty, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-NFAC - ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3970/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43CSection 50C

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

Pritam Singh Charan Singh Gujjar, Nagpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

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

Tushar Ramnath Shetty, Andheri East vs. The Imcome Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3074/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 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

Mr. Rakesh Govindchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 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

Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 43C

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

Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 43C

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