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Income Tax : ICAI Releases Exposure Draft Guidance Note On Report Under Section 92E Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Transfer Pricing) Based on the la...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 : 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 : Karnataka HC decision on transfer pricing adjustments and Section 92BA amendments in the PCIT vs TT Steel Service India Pvt. Ltd. ...
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...
The assessee is not entitled to adjustment of 5 per cent as stipulated u/s 92C(2), where only one of the several methods specified u/s 92C(1) is applied by the assessee to determine the arm’s length price
In principle, the CUP method (the traditional transaction method) is preferable to the other methods because all other things being equal, the CUP and traditional transactional methods lead to more reliable results vis-a-vis the results obtained by a
Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Adobe Systems India Private Limited v. ACIT [201 1-TII-13-ITAT-DEL-TP] (Date of Judgement: 21 January 2011; Assessment Year: 2006-07)held that supernormal profit making co
By considering the potential loss on the long standing receivables as a genuine adjustment in the course of assessment, the Tribunal has reinforced the principles that the concept of TP cannot be that of an exact science and that constant application
The TPO in his order held that the payment of incentive to employees is towards technical services rendered by the assessee to the AE and that the AE has entered into such transaction to avoid paying a mark-up on the payments. In the transfer pricing documentation, since the assessee had shown its operating profit margin at 27.95% (OP/TC), the TPO considering such margin, notionally imputed a markup on the said sum of `10,66,08,194 being the payment of incentive to employees by the associated enterprise and accordingly proposed an adjustment of `2,97,96,990.
It is undisputed that these three companies have shown supernormal comparable profits as compared to the other comparable. There exclusion from the list of comparable is quite correct. By excluding these three companies from the comparables and showing the computation on the basis of TPO data the arithmetic mean of OP/OC to 17.15% which falls within the +-5% range as permitted by section 92(C)(2). Hence, we find considerable cogency in the arguments of the ld. counsel of the assessee in this regard. We further find that assessee has made voluminous submissions including paper books before the DRP who has passed a very cursory and laconic order without going into the details of the submissions. We find that this is quite contrary to the mandate of section 144C of the IT Act.
The strategy adopted by the Government to tackle the menace of illicit funds is five-fold. This consists of: i) Joining Global crusade against ‘black money’; ii) Creating an appropriate legislative framework; iii) Setting up institutions for dealing
1. Under the Proviso to s. 92C(2) (pre-amendment w.e.f. 1.10.09) the option to the assessee to choose a price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent is available only where more than one price is determined and not where there is only one comparable instance (Sony India vs. DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Del) & DCIT vs. BASF India not followed. Perot System TSI (India) Ltd 130 TTJ 685 followed); 2. The said Proviso as amended w.e.f 1.10.09 is a substantive provision and not clarificatory and applies only from AY 2009-10 and onwards. Even otherwise, the exception provided in both the provisos of s. 92C(2) with regard to the +/- 5% variation applies only when more than one price is determined. Even under the amended law, the benefit is not available to the assessee if only one price has been determined by applying CUP method. 3. Circular No. 12/2001 dated 23.8.2001 which states that the AO shall not make any adjustment to the ALP determined by the assessee if such price is upto +/- 5% the price determined by the AO is not applicable because the assessee has not “determined” a price but has relied upon the “Agriwatch” data base. Even the AO has relied on the same data base. So, “the price determined by the assessee and the AO is the same” and the Circular is not applicable. There is also no absurdity in this interpretation; 4. The argument that the position should be seen as a whole with respect to all the transactions and not only with respect to the disputed transactions is not acceptable because the assessee has not shown that various purchases were a part of pre-arranged scheme or agreement so as to constitute a part of the indivisible transactions of purchase.
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
