Income Tax : Learn about the amendments to Section 92CA concerning references to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining arm's length pric...
Income Tax : New transfer pricing rules allow arm’s length price (ALP) determinations to apply for two consecutive years, reducing compliance...
Income Tax : Finance Bill 2025 allows multi-year Arm’s Length Price determination for similar transactions, reducing repetitive proceedings i...
Finance : The Finance Bill 2025 proposes multi-year ALP determination to reduce compliance burdens in transfer pricing. Learn about its fram...
Income Tax : Karnataka HC ruled that omission of Section 92BA(i) invalidates its application to domestic transactions, limiting transfer pricin...
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 : 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Income Tax : ICAI Releases Exposure Draft Guidance Note On Report Under Section 92E Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Transfer Pricing) Based on the la...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 : It was held that transactions and FAR of assessee were similar to AY 2021-22 and as per the records brought to our notice, there...
Income Tax : Respondent/assessee is a Irish company. It accordingly claimed benefits of the India-Ireland DTAA. ADIR is a wholly owned subsidia...
Income Tax : In the matter above-mentioned ITAT partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by remanded it back to file of TPO after consid...
Corporate Law : Delhi HC rules that SEB rates, not IEX rates, determine the market price of electricity in transfer pricing cases, dismissing Reve...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi clarifies tax treatment for Motricity India: No levy on notional income or closure costs. Insights on Transfer Pricing ...
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...
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...
In the present case, as we have noted earlier, it is only on account of the manufacturing activity that the activity of commissioning and installation of the equipment arises and pertinently all the aforesaid activities are negotiated and contracted for at one instance.
(d) Companies having super normal profit may have to be examined further to determine the reason for the extra ordinary profits. (e) Companies whose employee or directors are involved in fraud should not be accepted as the financial results are not reliable. (f) Companies having the turnover of less than Rs. one crore or more than Rs.200 crores should not be taken as comparables.
Transfer pricing adjustment in relation to advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee for creating or improving the marketing intangible for and on behalf of the foreign Associated Enterprises is permissible.
It is seen that the assessee has itself accepted that TNMM is similar to CPM excepting that CPM is based on gross margins whereas TNMM is based on net margins. The assessee has also accepted that if proper selection criteria are adhered to application of TNMM would also result in the fact that the price at which the assessee has undertaken the international transactions are at arm’s length.
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.
