Home › › Page 8

Search Results For: Transfer Pricing

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 8, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Important principles on benchmarking transactions of advances/ credit period tp AEs reiterated

Since sale price of the product or service was always influenced by the credit period allowed by the seller, the transaction of sale to the AE and credit period allowed in realization of sale proceeds are closely linked and the price determined for such sale is after consideration of the credit period provided by the seller. Further, it was also held that for the purpose of determining the ALP of sale transaction, the transaction of excess credit period provided by the seller to the AE is required to be aggregated with the sale transaction by the seller to the AE and cannot be benchmarked separately

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: For the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions, the effect of underutilization of capacity/excess fixed costs has to be eliminated while computing the operating margins of the assessee

Under-utilization of production capacity in the initial years is a vital factor which has been ignored by the authorities below while determining the ALP cost. The TPO should have made allowance for the higher overhead expenditure during the initial period of production. The claim of the assessee with respect to idle capacity adjustment during the relevant period while determining the ALP cost. Economic adjustment on account of under capacity utilization when the assessee was in start up phase has to be considered

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Even if the loan to the 100% subsidiary is intended to be a long term investment in the subsidiary and it has a crucial role to play in the assessee's business plans, it cannot be treated as "quasi capital". The ALP of the loan has to be determined on the basis of LIBOR interest

The expression ‘quasi capital’ is relevant from the point of view of highlighting that a quasi-capital loan or advance is not a routine loan transaction simplictor. The substantive reward for such a loan transaction is not interest but opportunity to own capital. As a corollary to this position, in the cases of quasi capital loans or advances, the comparison of the quasi capital loans is not with the commercial borrowings but with the loans or advances which are given in the same or similar situations

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The transaction of allowing credit period to the AE on realisation of sale proceeds is not an independent transaction and has to be considered along with the main international transaction of sale of goods

The transaction of allowing the credit period to AE on realization of sale proceeds is not an independent international transaction but it is a closely linked or continuous transaction along with sale transaction to the AE. The credit period allowed to the party depends upon various factors which also includes the price charged by the assessee from purchaser. Therefore, the credit period extended by the assessee to the AE cannot be examined independently but has to be considered along with the main international transaction being sale to the AE

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: , ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 26, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(i): As there is no requirement in the Act to deduct TDS on purchases made from Indian residents, imposing such a condition while making payments to non-residents violates the non-discrimination provision in Article 24 of the DTAA

Article 24 provides in unequivocal terms that for the purposes of determining the taxable profits of an Indian enterprise, any disbursements made to a Japanese enterprise shall be deductible in the same manner as if it had been made to an Indian resident. When we examine the TDS provisions, it is noticed that no provision under the Chapter XVII of the Act stipulates for deduction of tax at source from payment made for the purchases made from an Indian resident. This position when contrasted with purchases made from a non-resident, imposes liability on the purchaser for deducting tax at source under section 195, subject to the fulfilment of other conditions. When we compare an Indian enterprise purchasing goods from an Indian party vis-a-vis from a Japanese party, there is possibility of an obvious discrimination in terms of disallowance of purchase consideration under section 40(a)(i) in so far as the purchases from a Japanese enterprise are concerned. It is this discrimination which is sought to be remedied by para 3 of Article 24

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 6, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Entire law on determining ALP of transaction of loan of money to AE discussed

The question whether the interest rate prevailing in India should be applied, for the lender was an Indian company/assessee, or the lending rate prevalent in the United States should be applied, for the borrower was a resident and an assessee of the said country must be answered by adopting and applying a commonsensical and pragmatic reasoning. We have no hesitation in holding that the interest rate should be the market determined interest rate applicable to the currency concerned in which the loan has to be repaid. Interest rates should not be computed on the basis of interest payable on the currency or legal tender of the place or the country of residence of either party. Interest rates applicable to loans and deposits in the national currency of the borrower or the lender would vary and are dependent upon the fiscal policy of the Central bank, mandate of the Government and several other parameters. Interest rates payable on currency specific loans/ deposits are significantly universal and globally applicable. The currency in which the loan is to be re-paid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 26, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 6, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Tranfer Pricing: While an adjustment for working capital investment is required, the transaction of sale of goods and receivables arising therefrom can be aggregated. If the differential impact of working capital has been factored in the pricing of the transaction of sale, no further adjustment can be made

Any separate adjustment on the pretext of outstanding receivables while accepting the comparables and transfer price of underlying transaction i.e. sale of goods by application of TNMM is unjustified. The differential impact of working capital of the assessee vis-a-vis its comparables has already been factored in the pricing/ profitability of the assessee and therefore, any further adjustment to the margins of the assessee on the pretext of outstanding receivables is unwarranted and wholly unjustified

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Growth mutual funds do not yield dividend and so s. 14A/ Rule 8D does not apply, (ii) S. 14A/Rule 8D disallowance for admin exp cannot exceed allocable exp debited to P&L A/c, (iii) ALP of funds lent to AE should be as per LIBOR, (iv) ALP of corporate guarantee to be at 0.5%

Growth mutual fund does not yield any dividend/exempt income, therefore, the provisions of section 14A would not apply on the investment in growth mutual funds

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Share application money cannot be treated as loan amount merely because there is a delay in issuance of shares

For transfer pricing purposes, share application money cannot be treated as loan amount merely because there is a delay in issuance of shares by the subsidiary in the name of the assesse, which was duly explained by the assesse

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The “bright line test” has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed. Parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of Special Bench verdict in L. G. Electronics are not binding on the assessee or the Revenue. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration because the legal standards or ratio accepted and applied by the Tribunal was erroneous

Parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of the order dated 23rd January, 2013 in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd (supra) are not binding on the assesse or the Revenue. The “bright line test” has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed. We disagree with the Revenue and do not accept the overbearing and orotund submission that the exercise to separate “routine” and “non-routine” AMP or brand building exercise by applying “bright line test” of non-comparables should be sanctioned and in all cases, costs or compensation paid for AMP expenses would be “NIL”, or at best would mean the amount or compensation expressly paid for AMP expenses. It would be conspicuously wrong and incorrect to treat the segregated transactional value as “NIL” when in fact the two AEs had treated the international transactions as a package or a single one and contribution is attributed to the aggregate package. Unhesitatingly, we add that in a specific case this criteria and even zero attribution could be possible, but facts should so reveal and require. To this extent, we would disagree with the majority decision in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This would be necessary when the arm‘s length price of the controlled transaction cannot be adequately or reliably determined without segmentation of AMP expenses

Read more ›