Income Tax : Explore the Principal Purpose Test (PPT) in international tax law, its impact on treaty benefits, legal uncertainty, and potential...
Income Tax : Learn about income tax exemptions for universities, hospitals, and educational institutions under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act...
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...
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Income Tax : ICAI Releases Exposure Draft Guidance Note On Report Under Section 92E Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Transfer Pricing) Based on the la...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 : Advocate Amardeep Soni & Advocate Harsha Soni Gemplus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) A Case Study of ITAT BANGALORE...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT overturns AO's PE classification of QlikTech India, orders fresh review based on TPO order, addresses TDS and inter...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore sets aside AO's decision in Qlik Tech International AB vs DCIT, addressing PE classification, TDS credit, and tax r...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi directs inclusion of Magma Advisory Services Ltd. in Honda R&D's comparable list, rejecting TPO's reasons and DR's func...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore deletes AO’s protective addition in LM Wind Power case, citing settled MAP proceedings on IT fees and commission ...
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...
Income Tax : Notification No. 46/2023-Income-Tax Dated: 26th June, 2023 regarding deemed arm's length price for assessment year 2023-2024. Le...
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.
It was held that :- (a) Companies with extra-ordinary circumstances, like those which suffered events like merger/de-merger, impacting the financial results, could not be treated as comparables. (b) Companies having supernormal profit cannot be considered as comparable; (c) Companies which are functionally dissimilar cannot be taken as comparables. (d) Companies acting merely as intermediary having outsourced its activity cannot be considered as comparable.
TPO as well as the DRP have not considered the objections raised by the assessee against the comparables selected by the TPO for arriving at the ALP. As seen from the submissions of the assessee, the glaring differences that appears to us are that India Products Ltd., is in the business of processing and trading in spices, whereas the assessee is in the business of trading in Coffee.
As per the mandate of section 92(1), income from International transaction between AEs has to be computed having regard to ALP. Thus, there is nothing in the statutory language to suggest that the AO must demonstrate the avoidance of tax before invoking these provisions.
Recently on 18th October 2012, The Supreme Court of Canada gave its decision on the case of Majesty of Queen vs Glaxosmithkline Inc. Many Transfer Pricing Professionals had keen eye on this case as it involved huge stakes & would also serve as Benchmark cases for other Transfer Pricing Cases in future. Before looking at the case lets see its development.
The assessee made a claim for working capital adjustment before the TPO. The TPO made a detailed analysis exhibiting how such an adjustment is to be granted. According to the assessee, the TPO made reference to Rule 10B(3) demonstrating comparability adjustment. On the strength of this Rule, the TPO opined that Indian transfer pricing provisions prescribed only reasonable accurate adjustment. He also pointed out that thereafter the TPO made reference to OECD Commentary and also the judicial precedents on comparability adjustment.
