Transfer Pricing -Domestic leg of cross-border deal, even if consequential to overseas deal by parent AE, not covered if terms not dictated by parent AE

Kodak India Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No. 7349/Mum/2012, Date of Pronouncement : 30-04-2013

It is undisputed that the transaction involve two domestic companies, who are individual and independent subsidiaries of their own and independent holding companies. This is also not in dispute that neither of the holding companies could be called the AE of the other contracting party. This is also not in dispute that, there is any transaction, involving a non resident company.

The case as developed by the TPO/DRP and the DR is that despite the fact that there is no foreign entity involved with an AE who is a non-resident but provisions of section 92B(2) can deem a transaction to be an international transaction and the TP provisions could consequentially be applied, has to examined by examining the definitions of:

Associated Enterprises

International Transaction

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.