← 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

Softlayer Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 265/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

receivables do not exceed Rs,50 Cr, and 300 basis points if the receivables exceed Rs,50 Cr, This is as per the Safe Harbour Rules and is in conformity with the decision in Cotton Naturals. This rate of interest shall also be applied lithe foreign exchange risk is borne

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

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

M/S. Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1078/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 50C(1)

Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 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 section ... 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

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 12/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2019-20 and subsequent assessment years Explanatory Notes to Finance Act 2020 Increase in safe harbour limit of 5 per cent. under section 43CA, 50C and 56 of the Act to 10 per cent.. Section 43CA of the Act, inter ... under the head "Income from other sources". Thus, the present provisions of section 43CA, 50C and 56 of the Act provide for safe harbour of five per cent. Representations have been received in this regard requesting that the said safe harbour of five per cent may be increased

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 11/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2019-20 and subsequent assessment years Explanatory Notes to Finance Act 2020 Increase in safe harbour limit of 5 per cent. under section 43CA, 50C and 56 of the Act to 10 per cent.. Section 43CA of the Act, inter ... under the head "Income from other sources". Thus, the present provisions of section 43CA, 50C and 56 of the Act provide for safe harbour of five per cent. Representations have been received in this regard requesting that the said safe harbour of five per cent may be increased

Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Ciecle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1954/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2019-20 and subsequent assessment years Explanatory Notes to Finance Act 2020 Increase in safe harbour limit of 5 per cent. under section 43CA, 50C and 56 of the Act to 10 per cent.. Section 43CA of the Act, inter ... under the head "Income from other sources". Thus, the present provisions of section 43CA, 50C and 56 of the Act provide for safe harbour of five per cent. Representations have been received in this regard requesting that the said safe harbour of five per cent may be increased

M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle- 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1953/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2019-20 and subsequent assessment years Explanatory Notes to Finance Act 2020 Increase in safe harbour limit of 5 per cent. under section 43CA, 50C and 56 of the Act to 10 per cent.. Section 43CA of the Act, inter ... under the head "Income from other sources". Thus, the present provisions of section 43CA, 50C and 56 of the Act provide for safe harbour of five per cent. Representations have been received in this regard requesting that the said safe harbour of five per cent may be increased

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

These provisions came into force w.e.f. Assessment Year 2002-2003 and have seen a number of amendments over the years, including the insertion of Safe Harbour and Advance Pricing Agreement provisions and the extension of the applicability of transfer pricing provisions to Specified Domestic Transactions. 2. In terms

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

submitted that the requirement to exclude extraordinary items for benchmarking and determination of ALP is a well settled law. Even the Safe Harbour Rules allow for exclusion of extra-ordinary items while computing the operating expenses and the same is also provided in the OECD TP Guidelines 2010, as extracted

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 602/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.602/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. (Earlier Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Circle – 7(1)(1), Centre Private Limited), Bengaluru. No.81 & 82, Tesco H S C, Epip Area, White Field, Bengaluru-560 066. Pan : Aabct 8915 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

with mark-up. He submitted that the TPO has accepted the aggregation of expenses in the succeeding year. He also submitted that the “safe harbour rules for International transactions” included in Rule 10TA defines the term “operating expenses” in clause (j). As per the said definition, the “costs relating ... reimbursement as a separate international transaction and further holding that its ALP as NIL. 5.3 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the Safe harbour rules prescribed under Rule 10TA shall apply only to eligible assesses. In the instant case, TPO has given valid reasons for treating this reimbursement

M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2027/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, AR & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

which cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2024/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, AR & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

which cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7286/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhl Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit – 9(3)(1) 201A, Silver Utopia, Room No. 215, Cardinal Gracias Road 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Chakala, Andheri (E) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400099 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6824A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat.CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92D

worked out in respect of the AE sales of the assessee after considering the operating cost attributable to the same would be within the safe harbour range of +/- 5% of the ALP and no adjustment would be called for in its hands cannot be summarily accepted and would require verification

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

which cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

which cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

which cannot be compared to the assessee who is into provision of low end IT enabled services which are routine in nature. Further, the safe harbour rules clearly distinguish between an ITE service provider and a KPO service provider. This Tribunal has held that a KPO service provider cannot

Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 584/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)

years and doesn't cross the proposed filter, hence cannot considered as a right comparable.” 21 6.9 We find that the Tribunal (supra) invoking safe harbour rules for International Transaction (Rules 10TA to 10G) held functional dissimilarity of comparable companies. The term “core auto components” has been defined in Rule ... core auto components" mean auto components other than core auto components; 6.11 Further, in table below Rule 10TD(2), safe harbour limit of operating profit margin for core auto components and non-core auto component has been listed at serial No. 10, 11 and 12% and 22 8.5% respectively. Thus

Dhr Holding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 953/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

similar nature; Appropriate adjustment ought to have been 2.3 provided under Rule 10B( 1 )(e) of the Rules; and Reliance on the Safe Harbour Rules was neither 2.4 appropriate nor correct. 3. On the facts and in law, Ld. TPO erred in aggregating the international transactions of provision of business

Keihin Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with about directions

ITA 7801/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Keihin Automotive Systems Pvt. Dcit, Ltd.[Now Amalgamated & Known As Vs. Keihin India Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.,] Circle: 2 (1), Plot No. 663, Phase–5, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana – 122 016. Pan: Aaeck4216F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234ASection 37Section 92C

assessee. The learned authorised representative reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. He also relied on rule 10 TA of the safe Harbour rules wherein interest expenses is required to be excluded from the operating expenses. 22. The learned departmental representative submitted that safe Harbour rules do not apply

M/S. Amrapali Cinema, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amrapali Cinema, Acit, C/O-Sh. Anil Kumar Goel, Vs Circle-I, Income Tax Office, 90, Ram Nagar, Hapur Road, Near Bhainsali Ground, Meerut. Delhi Road, Meerut. Pan-Aabfa7846D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Fca. Respondent By Sh. Ashok Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2021

Section 143(3)Section 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 ITA No. 4850/Mum/2019 Assessment