Income Tax : This article explains how Safe Harbour Rules under the Income-tax Act, 2025 interact with APAs, MAP provisions, and transfer prici...
Income Tax : The framework outlines mandatory disclosures and timelines for opting into safe harbour. Key takeaway: strict compliance is essent...
Income Tax : The article explains how safe harbour rules simplify transfer pricing compliance. It highlights that eligible transactions are acc...
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 : 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 Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after finding that transfer pricing adjustments may have been added twic...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that television channel and content owner companies could not be compared with a content distribution business. Th...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that distribution fees paid to associated enterprises could not be treated as royalty. The Tribunal followed earl...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on management fees after finding that identical issues in the assessee’s own...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that transfer pricing adjustment was not justified where the foreign LLC’s income was already offered to tax in In...
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...
It is for the AO when he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may refer the computation of arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction under section92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. It was argued by Ld. DCIT (DR) Mr. Tarsem Lal that the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Surinder Mahajan, could not point out any specific mention in the statute.
Vide Finance Act, 2012, certain retrospective amendments were made in Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), intended to clarify and restate the legislative intent of the source rule of taxation for non-residents in India. In particular, they addressed situations where transfers took place exclusively between such non-residents—hence indirectly—of underlying assets in India. The relevant section 9(1)(i) of the Act became effective retrospectively as of 01 April 1962.
There is nothing whatsoever in the order of TPO which required or recommended any adjustment to the value of the international transactions. TPO did not deem it necessary to effect any revision of the sales price as shown by the assessee in its books.
Even if the assessee as well as the authorities below agree that the internal comparables are sufficient for the TP study in the present case, that does not justify the legal compulsion of examining the external comparables as well. An agreement, arrived at on the basis of incorrect premises between the contending parties, does not determine the legality or otherwise of the course of action opted by them. The course of action must be determined strictly on the basis of the words of the statute and not by the consensus of the contending parties.
The Australian Senate has passed legislation on the application of transfer pricing rules, designed to ensure that multinational companies pay their ‘fair share’ of tax. The Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012 was put forward before the house of Representatives in June 2012.
The prima-facie role of a Company Secretary is to identify all the AEs with whom the Company has transacted during the year. There are likely chances that some of the entities which are falling under the deeming fiction might go unnoticed to the auditors. The consequence of non-reporting of a transaction is as high as 2 % of the total value of transaction that went unreported. Further, penalty proceedings can also be initiated for concealment of true facts and disclosure under section the Income Tax Act.
It can be observed from the earlier parts of the TPO’s order that he confined himself only to IT/ITES for the purposes of bench marking. In such a case, there could have been no question of the TPO embarking upon the figures in relation to non-IT/ITES segments of some of the comparable cases as chosen by him. Apart from making a general statement that the TPO also considered the figures from non-IT/ITES segments in some of the comparable cases, no material has been placed on record to substantiate this argument.
Profitability if considered without considering the positive deviations would lead to impossible profitability positions, which is not what is contemplated under the provisions of 92C. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the ALP by taking into consideration both the net difference on the sale from the AE and purchase from the AE. The Assessing Officer may look into the fact as to the margins of the profits in regard to the transactions done by the assessee with its AE, as also the non-AE transactions and then compute the adjustment of ALP, if any.
Finance Act, 2012 has amended the provisions of sec. 92CA of the Act retrospectively to empower the TPO to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions noticed by him in the course of proceedings before him, even if said transaction was not reported by the assessing officer.
Transfer pricing until now was applicable to companies having cross border transactions with their ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. However, Finance Bill 2012, honoring the supreme court ruling in case of CIT vs. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).18121/2007), expanded the ambit of transfer pricing to specified domestic transactions w.e.f 01 April 2013.
