Income Tax : Learn how Section 161 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 establishes the arm's length principle for international and specified domestic ...
Income Tax : The article explains how transactions between associated domestic entities exceeding ₹20 crore must comply with arm's length pri...
Income Tax : Taxpayers entering specified domestic transactions exceeding prescribed thresholds must maintain transfer pricing documentation, a...
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 : 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 : ITAT Delhi held that documentary evidence established receipt of intra-group administrative support services and that the 5% marku...
Income Tax : ITAT held forex loss from ECB and capital transactions is non-operating for TP purposes and directed recomputation of PLI....
Income Tax : ITAT held that increased employee remuneration cannot be disallowed merely because business revenue declined where the expenditure...
Income Tax : The ITAT Pune held that detailed agreements, invoices and supporting records established that management support services were act...
Income Tax : ITAT excluded EDCIL, Just Dial, Info Edge and India Exposition Mart as transfer pricing comparables due to functional differences ...
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 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.
The taxpayer, a manufacturer and exporter of chemicals had more than 97.5 percent of its sales to its associated enterprise (“AE”). It benchmarked the sales to AEs under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method based on the average price charged by the AEs to the customers. The Revenue observed that the non-AEs who purchased the chemicals paid a higher price and adopted the price charged to the non-AEs as the CUP. The taxpayer stated that the AEs operated in the insulation industry and that the non-AEs were in the aerospace sector, which also resulted in the difference in pricing. It also contended that the AE came into existence for the reason that its ultimate customers required long term warranties on the product and were more comfortable dealing with an American firm than directly with the taxpayer. It was also pointed out that the ALP determined by the Revenue turned out to be higher than even the price ultimately charged to the buyers by the AEs. It also stated that the sale to non-AEs were in small quantities and non-recurrent, which cannot be compared directly with the sales to the AEs. However, the Revenue rejected taxpayer’s contentions after considering various aspects concerning the comparability of sales to non-AEs including differences in turnover, quantity, customer profiles and geography. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the taxpayer and ruled that there was no case for the Revenue in making the adjustments and accordingly, the sales to the AEs were held to be at arm’s length.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), in the case of ITO v. Zydus Altana Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TI I-29-ITAT–MUM-TP], while deciding the case in favour of the assessee, ruled that the determination of arm’s length price should be based on the functional and asset profile of a company and profit margins earned by comparable companies should be adjusted for functional differences between the tested party and the comparables. The Tribunal also ruled that in case an assessee’s income is exempt from tax (and taxable in the overseas jurisdiction), this factor should be considered by the revenue authorities while undertaking a tax assessment since in such a situation, there is no benefit to the assessee in charging its associated enterprise a lower mark-up.
