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Income Tax : ICAI Releases Exposure Draft Guidance Note On Report Under Section 92E Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Transfer Pricing) Based on the la...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...
No exhaustive and compact definition of the phrase ‘transfer pricing’ is possible nor has it been attempted in the legislations in the countries that have tried to find solutions to this menace. When transfers by way of sales exchange, etc. are made between two independent entities unconnected with each other as normal business deals, there can hardly be any scope of alleging any malpractice or hidden motives in price fixation.
Kodiak Networks (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- As far as the data to be used by the TPO while determining the ALP was concerned, it is observed that it is covered by the provisions of rule 10D sub-rule 4 of the Income-tax Rules. Section 92 C provides that the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the methods being the most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors for computing the ALP and also any other method as may be prescribed by the Board. S. 92D provides that (i) every person who has entered into an international transaction shall maintain and keep such information and documents in respect thereof;
Without adjudicating on the issue whether the Advertisement, Marketing and Sales Promotion expenditure incurred by the taxpayer can be characterised as an international transaction as per Section 92B of the Act, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the TPO in working out ALP is not justified and directed the AO to delete the adjustment made by the TPO.
The core issue that we are really required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee can be said to have a permanent establishment (PE)1 in India, and, if it is held that the assessee indeed has a permanent establishment in India how much profits can be taxed as being attributable to such a permanent establishment.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Judgment of Special Bench in Aztec Software (supra) is not in conflict with Sony India (supra) once the validity of said instruction is upheld by this Court. The followup thereof is that the Assessing Officer was supposed to refer the matter to the TPO having regard to the fact that Specialized Cell was created by the Revenue Department to deal with the complicated and complex issues arising out of the transfer mechanism. The Tribunal was right in holding that even the instant case itself provides a good example for need to refer the matter to TPO in such cases. When circular is issued under Section 119 of the Act and its validity is upheld it is binding on the Assessing Officer. Not taking recourse thereto and passing the order amounted to making assessment without conducting proper inquiry and investigation as enjoyed by law which was also warranted in the facts of this case and, therefore, the Commissioner was right in holding that such assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra).
M/s Aithent Technologies Pvt Ltd. V/s. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In its Transfer pricing study, the assessee adopted CUP method and justified the interest free loan on the basis that it had sufficient interest free funds. The TPO rejected the claim and computed notional interest at the rate of 14percent, based on certain domestic borrowings of the assessee.. On appeal, the Tribunal observed that the cost incurred by the assessee was not a relevant consideration under the CUP method and held that it was irrelevant whether the loans were advanced out of own funds or out of borrowed funds and whether the interest free loan were commercially expedient for the assessee or not.
DIT Vs. BBC Worldwise Ltd. (Delhi HC)- Bombay High Court in Set Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that if correct ALP is applied and paid, nothing further rwould be left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise. In the said case, Morgan Stanley (supra) as well as Circular No.23 issued by the CBDT was taken into consideration. The Court was also pleased to record that the commission paid to the agent was 15% services performed by the assessee‘s agent in India was in line with the existing industry standards in India at the prevalent time.
JDIT-OSD(IT) Vs. Harvard Medical International USA (ITAT Mumbai) The payment in question was purely for the purpose of advising, recommending and assisting in relation to healthcare projects. It was also for conducting education and training programmes. It was also for the purpose of review and giving feed back of various aspects and new cardiac hospital to be set up, recommendation on planned patient care delivery system.
Bindview India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)- In light of Pune bench’s decision in the case of Starent Networks (I) P. Ltd. Pune v. DCIT, the assessee’s claim for +/- 5% in order to compute arm’s length price in terms of erstwhile proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is accepted. Provisions of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10B are quite explicit and provide for analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with the international transaction in question on the basis of the data relating to financial year in which the international transaction sought to be tested has been entered into.
ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Center (ITAT Mumbai) -The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs. DCIT [(2009) 122 TTJ (Mum.) (SB) 577] has laid down the proposition to the effect that the Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the A.O. It has further been observed in this case that the scope of argument of the Departmental Representative should be confined to supporting ordefending the impugned order and he cannot be permitted to set up an altogether different case.
