Income Tax : The update outlines revised compliance forms, timelines, and penalties under the new rules. It highlights a structured transition ...
Corporate Law : The issue was identifying the correct transfer pricing method for intercompany transactions. The conclusion holds that TNMM is app...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the Indian entity was only a distributor and not a technology or content owner. It rejected the Revenue’s...
Income Tax : This explains the new block assessment mechanism allowing ALP to apply across multiple years. It emphasizes reduced disputes and s...
Income Tax : The issue concerns replacement of Form 3CEB with a new reporting framework. The reform mandates structured reporting with enhanced...
Income Tax : CBDT signed a record number of APAs to provide clarity on transfer pricing and reduce disputes. The framework ensures advance dete...
CA, CS, CMA : KSCAA urged CBDT to extend due dates for assessees under Section 92E, citing an omission in Circular No. 15/2025 that created inco...
CA, CS, CMA : Chartered Accountants Association, Ahmedabad requests extension of ITR and audit due dates for AY 2025-26 citing compressed timeli...
Income Tax : CBDT sets transfer pricing tolerance range at 1% for wholesale trading and 3% for other transactions for AY 2024-25, providing cla...
Income Tax : From April 2025, TPOs can determine ALP for SDTs not initially referred or reported. This ensures accurate adjustments and complia...
Income Tax : The issue was whether high-turnover companies can be compared with a smaller software service provider. The Tribunal held that com...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustment cannot survive without a final assessment order post-DRP directions. Repeating ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that subscription to preference shares cannot be re-characterized as loans in absence of evidence showing sham t...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that the safe harbour limit applies to valuation determined by the DVO, not just stamp duty value. It ruled in f...
Income Tax : The Court held that Tribunal remand is not a fresh reference under transfer pricing law. Hence, limitation expired earlier, entitl...
Income Tax : Notification 157/2025 sets 1% tolerance for wholesale trading and 3% for all other cases for Arm's Length Price variation for AY 2...
Income Tax : CBDT notifies Income Tax (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2025, introducing safe harbour rules for assessment year 2025-26. Full details o...
Income Tax : CBDT sets 1% tolerance for wholesale trading and 3% for other cases under Section 92C for FY 2024-25. No adverse effects from retr...
Income Tax : Stay informed on the latest Income Tax Rule changes with Notification No. 104/2023 by the Ministry of Finance. Learn about amendme...
Income Tax : Read how CBDT's Notification No. 58/2023 amends Income-tax Rules, extending Safe Harbour rules to AY 2023-24. Insights from Minist...
In the case of dredger Hector even though there is no dispute with reference to the examination of the international transactions in this year under the provisions of transfer pricing, while determining the ALP what is required to be considered is whether the price paid has any significant impact on the income. As submitted by assessee, the agreement was entered when the entities are independent and therefore, the price paid can be considered at arms length. Moreover, assessee also justified the price paid is within the permitted range of +/- 5% in both the cases, the fact of which was accepted by the CIT(A).
Relying on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal we exclude the Giant Companies namely Wipro and Infosys which are taken as comparables as turnovers of these companies are multiple number of times higher compared to that of the assessee, we hold that the DRO erred in considering their PLI to arrive at the arithmetic mean.
Since the issue of LIBOR has been considered and decided by the Tribunal in various cases as relied upon by the assessee (supra); therefore, to maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the decision of the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, and accept LIBOR for benchmarking interest on interest free loans to AEs. Since the LIBOR is a rate applicable in the transactions between the banks and further the loans advanced by the bank to clients are secure by security and guarantee; therefore, a loan which has been advanced without any security or guarantee as in the case of the assessee has to be benchmark by taking the Arm’s Length interest rate as LIBOR plus.
Coming to the issue regarding ICC International, we find that assessee has demonstrated, as noted earlier, that it had earned super profits during the year because of increase in supply on account of government scheme. We find that TPO has considered the assessee’s objection regarding exclusion of high margin comparables in para 8.7 of his order and the DRP in para 7.1. They have merely, inter alia, observed that comparables cannot be rejected simply because they are loss or high profit making comparables. However, they have not considered that if certain extraordinary factors materially affected the profit in a particular year then that aspects had to be taken into consideration and due adjustment was required to be made to the net profit margin for brining the comparable on the same platform at which the assessee was performing its functions.
The proposition that gain on foreign exchange if it relates to the business of the assessee is part and parcel of operating income is well established by the afore-mentioned decisions of the coordinate benches. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the gain made by the assessee on fluctuation of foreign exchange was not on account of business transactions of the assessee. In absence of any such material, following the afore-mentioned decisions of the Tribunal, it has to be held that the foreign exchange gain of the assessee is to be considered as part and parcel of the profit of the assessee and therefore should be included for the purpose of computing the profit margin of the assessee.
The first comparable taken by the TPO is CRISL Research and Information Services Ltd. The said comparable is common as the assessee has also selected the same in its original TP study. Though CRISL Ltd is basically a rating agency; however, since the segment results relating to the research activity has been taken into consideration; therefore, the other activity being rating agency does not effect the comparability solely because of this fact. The ld Sr counsel for the assessee has pointed out that about 60% of the income of the CRISL Ltd is from the related party transactions. This is a material fact that has to be considered for the purpose of selecting the uncontrolled comparable transactions as per sec. 92C(1) r.w.r 10B(1)(e) for the purpose of determination of ALP.
The language of this proviso to section 92C(2) makes it clear that selecting a price within the range of +-5% of such arithmetic mean if more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method. Therefore, the ALP shall be taken to be in the range of ± 5% of arithmetic mean of more than one price. Since in this case, one comparable is considered as ALP; therefore, the benefit under the said proviso would not be available.
The issue involved in the present case is relating to the determination of arm’s length price in relation to the international transactions involving payment of royalty by the assessee company to its associated enterprises. As provided in section 92C of the Act, such arms’s length price is to be determined by one of the methods prescribed, which is found to be the most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as may be prescribed. The manner in which such most appropriate method is to be applied for determination of arm’s length price is prescribed in Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Moreover, in the subsequent year i.e 2008-09 & 2009-10 the cup method as adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its international transactions has not been disputed by the revenue. Further, when the relevant data are now available, as stated by the ld Sr counsel, then it is appropriate to determine the ALP by adopting the same method as it was accepted in the subsequent year.
The fact of approval of the payment by the RBI has been succinctly recorded by the TPO in his order as well. He still chose to propose adjustment in respect of full payment. In our considered opinion, when the rate of royalty payment and fee for drawings etc. has been approved or deemed to have been approved by the RBI, then such payment has to be considered at ALP.
