CA, CS, CMA : Learn about transfer pricing, its importance, methods, documentation, penalties for non-compliance, and advanced pricing agreement...
Income Tax : Understand the UAE's transfer pricing framework and benchmarks for managerial compensation under the new corporate tax law. Ensure...
Income Tax : Explore the complexities of international taxation and transfer pricing, crucial for multinational enterprises. Learn about associ...
Income Tax : Discover key insights on Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (GloBE) for M&A strategies. Learn about Income Inclusion and Underta...
Income Tax : Delve into the complexities of digital taxation, exploring its evolution, significance, and global responses. Learn about fair ta...
Income Tax : What is the procedure to approve Form 3CEB? Form uploaded by CA shall be available under For your action tab in Taxpayer’s Workl...
Income Tax : ICAI Releases Exposure Draft Guidance Note On Report Under Section 92E Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Transfer Pricing) Based on the la...
Income Tax : Association for Corporate Advisers and Executives (ACAE) made a Request for Extension of Due Dates for filing Tax Audit and Transf...
Income Tax : Voice Of CA has made a Request for Extension of specified date of filing Tax Audit Report and other forms falling due on or before...
Income Tax : Chamber of Tax Consultants has made a Request for Extension of Due Dates for filing Tax Audit and Transfer Pricing Reports to Smt....
Income Tax : Learn how ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of Herbalife India on technical service payments, clarifying FTS under India-USA DTAA. Det...
Income Tax : Explore the ITAT Hyderabad's decision on interest as an international transaction in Clinasia Labs Pvt Ltd vs ITO case. Detailed a...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules RPM as the best method for benchmarking solar goods purchases in the D Light Energy P. Ltd. vs Assessing Officer ...
Income Tax : Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decisions in DCIT Vs Astral Limited case, offering key insights on TP adjustments, ESOP expenses, and Sect...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court quashes reassessment notices by DCIT after TPO settles arm's length remuneration issue. Detailed analysis of Prog...
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...
Income Tax : Notification No. 46/2023-Income-Tax Dated: 26th June, 2023 regarding deemed arm's length price for assessment year 2023-2024. Le...
Income Tax : In exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961...
Income Tax : Safe Harbour rules for AY 2022 2023 | Income tax Act, 1961 | Notification No. 66/2022-Income-Tax | Dated: 17th June, 2022 | CBDT...
TPO has not assigned any valid reason for rejecting the method adopted by the assessee for the determination of ALP with its transaction with ODSI. Where an assessee has followed one of standard methods of determining ALP, such a method cannot be discarded in preference over transactional profit methods,
The allowance of any expenditure arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the ALP. However, in the instant case the assessee has not claimed the expenditure of Rs. 7,42,20,575/- during the impugned assessment year and has itself disallowed the same while computing its taxable income. Therefore, we agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 92 are not applicable.
In our opinion, the exercise of ascertaining ALPs has to be done by the TPO keeping in view the well laid down scheme in the relevant provisions of the Act and addition, if any, on account of TP adjustment, has to be made only after doing such exercise. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AO/TPO with a direction to do such exercise and make addition, if any, on this issue after completing such exercise in accordance with law.
The TPO while rejecting the idle capacity, however, did not discuss anything about the arms length margin fixed at 11.96 per cent. This indicates that assessee’s TP study has not been considered by the TPO. The assessee has selected ten comparable companies and summary of net cost + margin varies from -6.04 per cent to 19.06 per cent.
The Explanation to section 92(1) of the Act clarifies that the allowance for any expense or interest arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the ALP and therefore the disallowance is made under section 92(1) and not under section 40A(2) of the Act.
As seen from the provisions, the CIT has no jurisdiction over the TPO administratively and therefore, the CIT could not have revised the order under section 92C(3) passed by the TPO.
Coming to the applicability of most appropriate method, both the parties have agreed that TNMM Method should be most appropriate method for benchmarking the ALP. The contention of learned CITDR is that before the TPO, even though this plea of applicability of TNMM Method was taken by the assessee by way of corroborated method, has neither considered the same nor examined it properly.
Where neither the TPO nor the DRP have found any fault with audited segmental accounts, the Departmental Representative cannot Canvass rejection of the same before the ITAT on the ground that the same one not prepared or audited as per ICAI guidelines.
The assessee in this case has used multiple year data in computing the arm’s length price. The TPO, the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have held that, such action by the assessee is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus it tantamounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Working given by the TPO shows that it is earning 7% commission, whereas as per the industry policy as decided by the AAAI the service on media agency earns commission of 2.5%. On that reason also, since it is an extreme case of earning 7% commission (in our view it is wrongly considered), on the principles that the extreme profit companies are to be excluded, this company cannot be considered as comparable for the purpose of arriving at the average mean.
