Income Tax : Explore the concept of transaction recharacterization in transfer pricing. Understand its rationale, benefits, and challenges in g...
Income Tax : Discover the key compliance dates for UAE transfer pricing regulations under the new corporate tax law effective from 1 June 2023....
Income Tax : India's Transfer Pricing regulations for FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-25) - This detailed chart lists key activities, legal sections, requi...
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 : 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Income Tax : ICAI Releases Exposure Draft Guidance Note On Report Under Section 92E Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Transfer Pricing) Based on the la...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 : 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 : ITAT Hyderabad directed to exclude companies having turnover of more than or less than 10 times of the turnover of the assessee fr...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that no transfer pricing adjustment could have been made in the hands of assessee on account of ALP of specified ...
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 : 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...
A continuing debit balance, in our humble understanding, is not an international transaction per se, but is a result of the international transaction. In plain words, a continuing debit balance only reflects that the payment, even though due, has not been made by the debtor.
It has been held by various judicial pronouncements that unless proper method is followed, comparables are chosen and selected after doing a proper FAR study as well as adjustments are made to the extent possible it would be unfair to summarily reject the transfer pricing analysis made by the assessee
During the year, the assessee has shown export sale of polished diamonds and claimed deduction u/s. 80HHC. The assessee also filed an Audit Report in the Form No. 3CEB. The Assessing Officer referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) u/s. 92CA(3).
The ITAT Delhi held where a taxpayer engaged in rendering advertising and related services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) is also acting as an intermediary between the AEs and the third party vendor to rent advertisement space from the vendor, costs recovered by the taxpayer from the AEs for such renting and then passed on to the vendors (pass-through costs) would not be value adding costs for the taxpayer and would, therefore, not be taken into account for computing net profit margin (Operating Profit / Total Cost) of the taxpayer for applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has ruled on the transfer pricing aspects of management services fees paid by the Taxpayer to its regional headquarter company (associated enterprise or AE). The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) that the Taxpayer has not proved the commensurate benefits received for the service fees paid to the AE and, hence, ruled that the payment of the management services was not justified under arm’s length principles.
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Australia (“the Court”), in the case of SNF (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 635 ,ruled in favour of the taxpayer acceding to the approach of direct transactional (price) comparisons (i.e., use of Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method) adopted by the taxpayer, and rejecting the profit-based analysis (using Transaction Net Margin Method) suggested by the Commissioner of Taxation (“the Commissioner”) for benchmarking the taxpayer’s purchase (of polyacrylamide products or “the products”) transactions with its overseas affiliates. The Court also held that sustained losses do not necessarily imply that the transfer prices are not at arm’s length. In this context, the Court also observed that parent company support provided under a market penetration strategy might permit a loss-making company to continue operations over an extended period without exiting the market. After Roche Products Pty Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxation [2008] 70 ATR 703 , this judgement is only the second substantive transfer pricing decision to have been pronounced by an Australian Court or Tribunal.
The taxpayer, a manufacturer and exporter of chemicals had more than 97.5 percent of its sales to its associated enterprise (“AE”). It benchmarked the sales to AEs under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method based on the average price charged by the AEs to the customers. The Revenue observed that the non-AEs who purchased the chemicals paid a higher price and adopted the price charged to the non-AEs as the CUP. The taxpayer stated that the AEs operated in the insulation industry and that the non-AEs were in the aerospace sector, which also resulted in the difference in pricing. It also contended that the AE came into existence for the reason that its ultimate customers required long term warranties on the product and were more comfortable dealing with an American firm than directly with the taxpayer. It was also pointed out that the ALP determined by the Revenue turned out to be higher than even the price ultimately charged to the buyers by the AEs. It also stated that the sale to non-AEs were in small quantities and non-recurrent, which cannot be compared directly with the sales to the AEs. However, the Revenue rejected taxpayer’s contentions after considering various aspects concerning the comparability of sales to non-AEs including differences in turnover, quantity, customer profiles and geography. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the taxpayer and ruled that there was no case for the Revenue in making the adjustments and accordingly, the sales to the AEs were held to be at arm’s length.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), in the case of ITO v. Zydus Altana Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TI I-29-ITAT–MUM-TP], while deciding the case in favour of the assessee, ruled that the determination of arm’s length price should be based on the functional and asset profile of a company and profit margins earned by comparable companies should be adjusted for functional differences between the tested party and the comparables. The Tribunal also ruled that in case an assessee’s income is exempt from tax (and taxable in the overseas jurisdiction), this factor should be considered by the revenue authorities while undertaking a tax assessment since in such a situation, there is no benefit to the assessee in charging its associated enterprise a lower mark-up.
Supreme Court has asked the finance ministry and Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the apex body in charge of administering India’s taxation system, to amend transfer pricing, or TP, laws if it wishes to bring domestic transactions under their ambit.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supreme Court), on 1st October 2010, in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. has directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to complete the transfer pricing assessment proceedings without being influenced by the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court had clarified crucial transfer pricing dimensions related to marketing intangibles and provided guidance for ascertaining the arm’s length price under the provisions of Section 92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)
