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...
Kodiak Networks (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- As far as the data to be used by the TPO while determining the ALP was concerned, it is observed that it is covered by the provisions of rule 10D sub-rule 4 of the Income-tax Rules. Section 92 C provides that the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the methods being 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 for computing the ALP and also any other method as may be prescribed by the Board. S. 92D provides that (i) every person who has entered into an international transaction shall maintain and keep such information and documents in respect thereof;
Without adjudicating on the issue whether the Advertisement, Marketing and Sales Promotion expenditure incurred by the taxpayer can be characterised as an international transaction as per Section 92B of the Act, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the TPO in working out ALP is not justified and directed the AO to delete the adjustment made by the TPO.
The core issue that we are really required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee can be said to have a permanent establishment (PE)1 in India, and, if it is held that the assessee indeed has a permanent establishment in India how much profits can be taxed as being attributable to such a permanent establishment.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Judgment of Special Bench in Aztec Software (supra) is not in conflict with Sony India (supra) once the validity of said instruction is upheld by this Court. The followup thereof is that the Assessing Officer was supposed to refer the matter to the TPO having regard to the fact that Specialized Cell was created by the Revenue Department to deal with the complicated and complex issues arising out of the transfer mechanism. The Tribunal was right in holding that even the instant case itself provides a good example for need to refer the matter to TPO in such cases. When circular is issued under Section 119 of the Act and its validity is upheld it is binding on the Assessing Officer. Not taking recourse thereto and passing the order amounted to making assessment without conducting proper inquiry and investigation as enjoyed by law which was also warranted in the facts of this case and, therefore, the Commissioner was right in holding that such assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra).
M/s Aithent Technologies Pvt Ltd. V/s. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In its Transfer pricing study, the assessee adopted CUP method and justified the interest free loan on the basis that it had sufficient interest free funds. The TPO rejected the claim and computed notional interest at the rate of 14percent, based on certain domestic borrowings of the assessee.. On appeal, the Tribunal observed that the cost incurred by the assessee was not a relevant consideration under the CUP method and held that it was irrelevant whether the loans were advanced out of own funds or out of borrowed funds and whether the interest free loan were commercially expedient for the assessee or not.
DIT Vs. BBC Worldwise Ltd. (Delhi HC)- Bombay High Court in Set Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that if correct ALP is applied and paid, nothing further rwould be left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise. In the said case, Morgan Stanley (supra) as well as Circular No.23 issued by the CBDT was taken into consideration. The Court was also pleased to record that the commission paid to the agent was 15% services performed by the assessee‘s agent in India was in line with the existing industry standards in India at the prevalent time.
JDIT-OSD(IT) Vs. Harvard Medical International USA (ITAT Mumbai) The payment in question was purely for the purpose of advising, recommending and assisting in relation to healthcare projects. It was also for conducting education and training programmes. It was also for the purpose of review and giving feed back of various aspects and new cardiac hospital to be set up, recommendation on planned patient care delivery system.
Bindview India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)- In light of Pune bench’s decision in the case of Starent Networks (I) P. Ltd. Pune v. DCIT, the assessee’s claim for +/- 5% in order to compute arm’s length price in terms of erstwhile proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is accepted. Provisions of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10B are quite explicit and provide for analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with the international transaction in question on the basis of the data relating to financial year in which the international transaction sought to be tested has been entered into.
ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Center (ITAT Mumbai) -The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs. DCIT [(2009) 122 TTJ (Mum.) (SB) 577] has laid down the proposition to the effect that the Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the A.O. It has further been observed in this case that the scope of argument of the Departmental Representative should be confined to supporting ordefending the impugned order and he cannot be permitted to set up an altogether different case.
HC decides at what stage it can be held that there had been an international transaction between taxpayer and its Assocaited Enterprises
