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...
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and connected, and these appeals were heard together, these are being consolidated and disposed of together by this common order.
This is good news for Multi-national companies (MNCs) operating in India. Over 1,600 such companies, who were asked to pay additional corporate taxes on account of their overseas transactions, now, have the option to appeal before the conventional forum of Commissioner (Appeal) as well as Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for redressal of their grievances. An appeal before the commissioner (Appeal) may take a year or two for a decision.
The Delhi Tribunal, in the case of Global Vantedge Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2010-TIOL¬24-ITAT-DEL], has held that the total amount of adjustment made, along with the arms length price (ALP) already reported by the Taxpayer, cannot exceed the total amount of revenues earned by the Taxpayer and its associated enterprise (AE) from dealing with third party clients.
Buoyed by a favourable Supreme Court order in the Vodafone tax case, the income-tax department has asked E*Trade Mauritius to pay capital gains tax on the sale of its shares held in Indian company IL&FS Investsmart to HSBC in September 2008. E*Trade Mauritius is indirectly held by E*Trade Financial Corporation and is in the business […]
The provision of section 147 is not, in any manner, controlled by section 92 nor there is any limit to consideration of any material having nexus with the opinion on the issue of escapement of assessment of income; requirement of section 147 is fulfilled if the AO can legitimately form an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; for forming such opinion, any relevant material can be considered and the order of TPO can certainly have nexus for reaching the conclusion that income has been incorrectly assessed or has escaped assessment; in such a situation, it cannot be held that the notice proposing reassessment is vitiated merely because one of the reasons referred to order of TPO.
The method adopted by a company to arrive at a transfer price is valid unless the tax officer can prove that the company had manipulated the price to shift profits outside India, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled. The tribunal has also observed that the transfer pricing officer (TPO) should have sufficient ground to suspect the shift in profits before invoking the transfer pricing rules.
The proviso to s. 92C (2) consists of two limbs. Under the first limb, where, through the Most Appropriate Method, more than one price is determined, the arithmetic mean of such price has to be taken to be the Arm’s Length Price in relation to the international transaction. The second limb gives “an option” to the taxpayer to take Arm’s Length Price which may vary from the arithmetic mean by an amount not exceeding 5% of such arithmetic mean. This option is applicable even to cases where the taxpayer intends to challenge the Arm’s Length Price taken as arithmetic mean and determined through the Most Appropriate Method. The argument of the Revenue that where the difference is much more than 5%, then the taxpayer cannot have the benefit of the said provision, particularly where the taxpayer has not accepted such arithmetic mean, is not correct. Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
Therefore, there cannot be a formula which had no connection with the value of the individual assets and the liabilities. The price was determined that of the business and therefore, there is no question of picking up any portion of such price and charging its capital gains. It appears to us that before transfer of the company, the said company had issued subscribed share capital and the original share certificates
The transfer pricing concept is new to the Indian tax system. These provisions are intended to curb the mischief of avoidance of payment of tax in India either by understating the receipt or by overstating the expenses in respect of international transaction with Associates Enterprises. As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley’s case (292 ITR 416) The object behind enactment of transfer pricing regulations is to prevent shifting of profits outside India.
The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that transfer pricing is not an exact science in which mathematical certainty is possible and some approximations cannot be ruled out. The case relates to transfer pricing of captive software development services rendered by an Indian subsidiary Mentor Graphics to its US-based overseas parent.
