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...
The TPO in his order held that the payment of incentive to employees is towards technical services rendered by the assessee to the AE and that the AE has entered into such transaction to avoid paying a mark-up on the payments. In the transfer pricing documentation, since the assessee had shown its operating profit margin at 27.95% (OP/TC), the TPO considering such margin, notionally imputed a markup on the said sum of `10,66,08,194 being the payment of incentive to employees by the associated enterprise and accordingly proposed an adjustment of `2,97,96,990.
It is undisputed that these three companies have shown supernormal comparable profits as compared to the other comparable. There exclusion from the list of comparable is quite correct. By excluding these three companies from the comparables and showing the computation on the basis of TPO data the arithmetic mean of OP/OC to 17.15% which falls within the +-5% range as permitted by section 92(C)(2). Hence, we find considerable cogency in the arguments of the ld. counsel of the assessee in this regard. We further find that assessee has made voluminous submissions including paper books before the DRP who has passed a very cursory and laconic order without going into the details of the submissions. We find that this is quite contrary to the mandate of section 144C of the IT Act.
The strategy adopted by the Government to tackle the menace of illicit funds is five-fold. This consists of: i) Joining Global crusade against ‘black money’; ii) Creating an appropriate legislative framework; iii) Setting up institutions for dealing
1. Under the Proviso to s. 92C(2) (pre-amendment w.e.f. 1.10.09) the option to the assessee to choose a price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent is available only where more than one price is determined and not where there is only one comparable instance (Sony India vs. DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Del) & DCIT vs. BASF India not followed. Perot System TSI (India) Ltd 130 TTJ 685 followed); 2. The said Proviso as amended w.e.f 1.10.09 is a substantive provision and not clarificatory and applies only from AY 2009-10 and onwards. Even otherwise, the exception provided in both the provisos of s. 92C(2) with regard to the +/- 5% variation applies only when more than one price is determined. Even under the amended law, the benefit is not available to the assessee if only one price has been determined by applying CUP method. 3. Circular No. 12/2001 dated 23.8.2001 which states that the AO shall not make any adjustment to the ALP determined by the assessee if such price is upto +/- 5% the price determined by the AO is not applicable because the assessee has not “determined” a price but has relied upon the “Agriwatch” data base. Even the AO has relied on the same data base. So, “the price determined by the assessee and the AO is the same” and the Circular is not applicable. There is also no absurdity in this interpretation; 4. The argument that the position should be seen as a whole with respect to all the transactions and not only with respect to the disputed transactions is not acceptable because the assessee has not shown that various purchases were a part of pre-arranged scheme or agreement so as to constitute a part of the indivisible transactions of purchase.
A continuing debit balance, in our humble understanding, is not an international transaction per se, but is a result of the international transaction. In plain words, a continuing debit balance only reflects that the payment, even though due, has not been made by the debtor.
It has been held by various judicial pronouncements that unless proper method is followed, comparables are chosen and selected after doing a proper FAR study as well as adjustments are made to the extent possible it would be unfair to summarily reject the transfer pricing analysis made by the assessee
During the year, the assessee has shown export sale of polished diamonds and claimed deduction u/s. 80HHC. The assessee also filed an Audit Report in the Form No. 3CEB. The Assessing Officer referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) u/s. 92CA(3).
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 Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has ruled on the transfer pricing aspects of management services fees paid by the Taxpayer to its regional headquarter company (associated enterprise or AE). The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) that the Taxpayer has not proved the commensurate benefits received for the service fees paid to the AE and, hence, ruled that the payment of the management services was not justified under arm’s length principles.
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Australia (“the Court”), in the case of SNF (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 635 ,ruled in favour of the taxpayer acceding to the approach of direct transactional (price) comparisons (i.e., use of Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method) adopted by the taxpayer, and rejecting the profit-based analysis (using Transaction Net Margin Method) suggested by the Commissioner of Taxation (“the Commissioner”) for benchmarking the taxpayer’s purchase (of polyacrylamide products or “the products”) transactions with its overseas affiliates. The Court also held that sustained losses do not necessarily imply that the transfer prices are not at arm’s length. In this context, the Court also observed that parent company support provided under a market penetration strategy might permit a loss-making company to continue operations over an extended period without exiting the market. After Roche Products Pty Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxation [2008] 70 ATR 703 , this judgement is only the second substantive transfer pricing decision to have been pronounced by an Australian Court or Tribunal.
