Income Tax : No exhaustive and compact definition of the phrase ‘transfer pricing’ is possible nor has it been attempted in the legislation...
Income Tax : The ruling upholds and reiterates the OECD position on pass -through costs that are not incurred for value-added purposes. It will...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held where a taxpayer engaged in rendering advertising and related services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) is...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruling has reiterated the principle of 'bona fide difference of opinion' arising in the context of application of mos...
Income Tax : Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s Panasonic India Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Office, ...
Income Tax : Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT Vs M/s Toshiba India Private Lim...
No exhaustive and compact definition of the phrase ‘transfer pricing’ is possible nor has it been attempted in the legislations in the countries that have tried to find solutions to this menace. When transfers by way of sales exchange, etc. are made between two independent entities unconnected with each other as normal business deals, there can hardly be any scope of alleging any malpractice or hidden motives in price fixation.
The ruling upholds and reiterates the OECD position on pass -through costs that are not incurred for value-added purposes. It will provide clarity and guidance to taxpayers and tax administration alike on the issue of determination of cost base in si
The ITAT Delhi held where a taxpayer engaged in rendering advertising and related services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) is also acting as an intermediary between the AEs and the third party vendor to rent advertisement space from the vendor, costs recovered by the taxpayer from the AEs for such renting and then passed on to the vendors (pass-through costs) would not be value adding costs for the taxpayer and would, therefore, not be taken into account for computing net profit margin (Operating Profit / Total Cost) of the taxpayer for applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
The Tribunal ruling has reiterated the principle of ‘bona fide difference of opinion’ arising in the context of application of most appropriate transfer pricing method. The Tribunal has ruled that any addition to income arising as a result of bona fide difference of opinion cannot be used as a basis for levy of penalty.
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s Panasonic India Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Office, has upheld the aggregation of transactions where the Functions, Assets &; Risks underlying those transactions are similar. The Tribunal also concluded that reimbursement of advertisement expenses received by a Distributor from its Associated Enterprise (AE) must be treated as operating income for computing profitability of the taxpayer under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) method.
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT Vs M/s Toshiba India Private Limited (2010-TII-14-ITAT-DEL-TP) has rejected the Assessing Officer’s approach of cherry picking the comparables and proposing an arbitrary Transfer Pricing adjustment.
The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacture and export of diamonds and jewellery, claimed that having regard to the nature of the product, none of the transfer pricing methods were applicable for benchmarking the international transactions with associated enterprises. The TPO rejected the argument on the ground that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was applicable and made an adjustment by comparing the enterprise level operating margins.
DCIT vs. Indo American Jewellery (ITAT Mumbai) :- Assessee’s TP study cannot be rejected lightly, “comparables” have to be comparable on all parameters, no incentive to shift profits offshore if tax rates there are higher.
Established in September, 2001, IL Jin Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. (IL Jin/ Taxpayer) is engaged in the business of manufacturing & selling printed circuit boards for consumer durables. It commenced commercial production in January, 2002. During FY 2002-03, for its operations, the Taxpayer entered into various international transactions (See Note 1 below) with its AEs, with the bulk of international transactions being that of purchase of raw material.
