← 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

Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1009/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

Appeals Morgan Stanely India Company Private Limited Vs. Income-tax Officer NEC, Delhi “Ground 1: Adjustment to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the broking commission earned by the Appellant 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of the Honourable ... assessee had shown international transactions aggregating to Rs.146,78,92,542/- with associates enterprises. Therefore, case was referred to TPO for determination of Arm’s Length Price in respect of aforesaid international transactions with associate enterprises. 4. The TPO vide order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.10.2017 recommended

Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 4 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7550/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

Appeals Morgan Stanely India Company Private Limited Vs. Income-tax Officer NEC, Delhi “Ground 1: Adjustment to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the broking commission earned by the Appellant 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of the Honourable ... assessee had shown international transactions aggregating to Rs.146,78,92,542/- with associates enterprises. Therefore, case was referred to TPO for determination of Arm’s Length Price in respect of aforesaid international transactions with associate enterprises. 4. The TPO vide order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.10.2017 recommended

Hitachi Astemo Haryana Private Limited (Formerly Showa India Private Limited), Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1005/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandrahitachi Astemo Haryana Private Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 22 (2), (Formerly Showa India Private Ltd.), Delhi. Plot No.23-32, Sector 58, Behind Jcb India Ltd., Faridabad – 121 002 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabce5725G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Akshay Uppal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2023 Date Of Order : 23.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 270ASection 92C

conducted by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for determination of the Arm's length price using Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method as the most appropriate method. 9. Without prejudice to any of the grounds, the Ld. AO/NFAC//TPO/DRP ... Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 27.07.2021. In this order, the TPO suggested upward adjustment in the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of international transactions. The AO passed draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act on 18.09.2021 incorporating TPO’s recommendations. The assessee