Section 10D of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 10D is Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (398 ITR 120), cited in 84 of the 34 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10D

Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
398 ITR 120 · 2017 · High Court
84
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that a detailed functional and working capital analysis, considering various factors, is essential before treating outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction for transfer pricing adjustments on notional interest. Simply making an adjustment based on receivables alone without such study distorts the transaction's character.

New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT
49 ITR 137 · 1963 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not apply to income tax proceedings. Each assessment year's assessment is final only for that specific year and does not bind or govern assessments for subsequent years.

Perot Systems TSI (India) Ltd. v. DCIT
37 SOT 358 · 2010 · ITAT
55
citing judgments

Interest-free loans given to 100% foreign subsidiaries are not accepted as quasi-capital, and the arm's length price of such loans can be determined and added to total income.

CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds
261 ITR 258 · 2003 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The assessee bears the initial burden to maintain and produce authentic documentation under Section 92D and Rule 10D to justify transactions with related parties, especially concerning the arm's length price for such transactions under Section 40A(2)(b). The discharge of this statutory obligation to maintain accurate data is a mandatory requirement of law.

Private Limited v. ITO
147 Taxmann.com 585 · 2023 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Reassessment notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, relying on Notifications extending the applicability of unamended Sections 148 to 151 beyond March 31, 2021, are invalid because the unamended provisions ceased to exist.

Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
13 Taxmann.com 82 · 2011 · High Court
43
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot disregard an assessee's decision to avail services from associated enterprises, even if the assessee has internal expertise, as the determination of necessity is the assessee's prerogative. The Transfer Pricing Officer's role is to determine the arm's length price, not the need for the service itself.

CIT v. Indo American Jewellery Ltd.
44 Taxmann.com 310 · 2014 · High Court
42
citing judgments

A transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed receivables from an Associated Enterprise (AE) may not be warranted if the assessee consistently does not charge interest from both AEs and non-AEs.

Instrumentation Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT (IT)
71 Taxmann.com 193 · 2016 · ITAT
37
citing judgments

Outstanding invoices with a foreign associated enterprise are considered international transactions under Explanation to section 92B, and transfer pricing provisions apply as anti-abuse measures, overriding general provisions. Notional interest income can be brought to tax based on the arm's length principle, even if it involves assumptions.

M.M. Ipoh & Ors. v. CIT
67 ITR 106 · 1968 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income tax assessments, meaning a decision on a question of fact or law in one assessment year is not binding in another assessment year. Findings of fact in an earlier year can be cogent evidence, but are not conclusive for subsequent years.

CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad)
242 ITR 691 · High Court
34
citing judgments

A wrong decision, even if followed in earlier years, cannot be perpetuated on the basis of the principle of consistency if it contravenes the correct law and facts.

Judgments on Section 10D

ACIT, Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Alkaloids Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 383/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.383/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata..............……….........…..........….…… Appellant Vs. M/S Alkaloids Corporation.......….....……........….....…...…..…..... Respondent 8, Bentinch Street, Lal Bazar, Kolkata-700001. [Pan:Aaefa8293P] C.O. 13/Kol/2022 (A/O I.T.A. No.383/Kol/2022) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Alkaloids Corporation ..............……….................….…… Cross-Objector 8, Bentinch Street, Lal Bazar, Kolkata-700001. [Pan:Aaefa8293P] Vs. Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.......….....……..….....…....…........... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 19, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue & Cross- Objection By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 250Section 92D