← All Phrases

“arm's length price”

Transfer PricingSection 92Section 921,810 judgments

The decision most relied on for arm's length price is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), cited in 422 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on arm's length price

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
376 ITR 183 · 2015 · High Court
170
citing judgments

For transfer pricing comparability analysis, companies should not be excluded solely based on higher turnover if they are otherwise functionally comparable, unless the turnover difference reflects fundamental functional dissimilarities, brand value, or risk profiles that materially impact profitability.

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.
430 ITR 298 · 2021 · High Court
132
citing judgments

A corporate guarantee issued to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring adjustments for guarantee commission due to inherent risk. The reasonable arm's length rate for benchmarking such corporate guarantees can be determined using internal or external comparable uncontrolled prices.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT
381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 206 · 2015 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When determining the arm's length price for interest on a foreign currency loan advanced to an Associated Enterprise, the Indian Prime Lending Rate is not applicable. Instead, the interest rate should be benchmarked based on the prevailing foreign currency rate, such as EURIBOR, or the rate in the country where the loan is received/consumed.

Judgments citing arm's length price

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1012/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessment year, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer, Kolkata ("TPO") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO computed the Arm's Length Price and passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on January 25, 2016. On receipt of the TPO's order, the Draft

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1011/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessment year, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer, Kolkata ("TPO") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO computed the Arm's Length Price and passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on January 25, 2016. On receipt of the TPO's order, the Draft

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1010/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessment year, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer, Kolkata ("TPO") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO computed the Arm's Length Price and passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on January 25, 2016. On receipt of the TPO's order, the Draft

M/S Amalgamations Valeo Clutch Private Limited, Kanchi8Puram vs. DCIT, Taxpayer Unit--1, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 386/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.386/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Amalgamations Valeo Clutch Dcit Private Limited Large Tax Payer Unit-1 बनाम/ B9, Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai. Vaippur A Block Village, Vs. Sriperumbudur, S.O. Oragadam Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-9038-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K.Prasanna (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.Prasanna (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

failed to appreciate the fact that the expenses have undergone and satisfied the test of Arm's Length Price, thereby inherently satisfying the test of expenditure. 4. The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. As is evident, two issues fall for our consideration