Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: 92C

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: June 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 260A Transfer Pricing: Appeals against exclusion or inclusion of comparables to determine ALP of tested parties should not be filed in a ritualistic manner. Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded relevant factors in the ALP determination that impact significantly

However, before closing, we would like to record the fact that we find that the Revenue is regularly filing appeals from the orders of the Tribunal in respect of Transfer Pricing particularly with regard to exclusion and inclusion of certain companies as comparables to determine ALP of tested parties. These appeals are being filed in a ritualistic manner. This results in the orders of the Tribunal which are essentially findings of fact in respect of exclusion/inclusion of a comparable being challenged without pointing out in any manner perversity of finding or failure to adhere to the settled principles of law while determining comparables such as Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1961. This unnecessarily takes up the scarce time of the Court.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 27, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 260A: Entire law on when transfer pricing disputes constitute "substantial questions of law" for challenge in the High Court explained. Transfer Pricing Adjustments on the basis of the comparables are a matter of estimate of broad and fair guess-work of the Authorities based on relevant material. The exercise of fact finding or ‘Arm’s Length Price’ determination or ‘Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ should become final with a quietus at the hands of the final fact finding body, i.e. the Tribunal. The ITAT's findings of fact cannot be challenged in the High Court unless it is shown that the findings are ex-facie perverse and unsustainable and exhibit total non-application of mind by the Tribunal to the relevant facts of the case and evidence before it

This Court cannot be expected to undertake the exercise of comparison of the comparables itself which is essentially a fact finding exercise. Neither the sufficient Data nor factual informations nor any technical expertise is available with this Court to undertake any such fact finding exercise in the said appeals under Section 260-A of the Act. This Court is only concerned with the question of law and that too a substantial one, which has a well defined connotations as explained above and findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal in these type of assessments like any other type of assessments in other regular assessment provisions of the Act, viz. Sections 143, 147 etc. are final and are binding on this Court. While dealing with these appeals under Section 260-A of the Act, we cannot disturb those findings of fact under Section 260-A of the Act, unless such findings are ex-facie perverse and unsustainable and exhibit a total nonapplication of mind by the Tribunal to the relevant facts of the case and evidence before the Tribunal.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Entire law on whether the TPO can sit in judgement over the business model of the assessee and determine the ALP of the transactions with AEs at Nil explained in the context of judgements in Kodak India 288 CTR 46 (Bom), Lever India Exports 292 CTR 393 (Bom), Cushman and Wakefield 233 TAXMAN 250 (Del), R.A.K. Ceramics 293 CTR 361 (AP) & Delloite Consulting 137 ITD 21 (Mum)

Now, coming to the issue of transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO on account of services availed by the assessee from its associated enterprises and taking the value of said international transactions at Nil. In the first instance, we hold that TPO cannot sit in the judgment of business module of assessee and its intention to avail or not to avail any services from its associated enterprises. The role of TPO is to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee and whether the same is at arm’s length price when compared with similar transactions undertaken by external entities or internal comparables

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is not the Most Appropriate Method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in respect of the transactions of (sales of goods and sales commission) with Associated Enterprises (AEs) if there are geographical differences, volume differences, timing differences, risk differences and functional differences. If it is not shown that the selection of TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method is perverse, the same cannot be challenged

The TPO has while stating that FAR analysis has to be carried out, does not indicate that it was carried out. On the contrary, we find that the Tribunal in the impugned order has done the necessary FAR analysis. This is so as it has compared the risk and functional differences involved in finished goods being sold to AEs as against those sold to third parties as we have enumerated above to come to the conclusion that the prices at which the finished goods sold to the third parties are not comparables to the prices at which the goods sold to the AEs inter alia on the FAR analysis. We note that the finished goods are customized goods and the geographical differences, volume differences, timing differences, risk differences and functional differences, came to a conclusion that the CUP method would not be the MAM to determine the ALP

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 31, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 11, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Under Explanation 7 to s. 271(1)(c), the onus on the assessee is only to show that the ALP is computed in accordance with the scheme of s. 92 C in good faith and due diligence. The fact that the TPO changes the method of computation of ALP does not mean it is a fit case for imposition of penalty if there is no dishonesty is found in the conduct of the assessee

The scheme of Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act makes it clear that the onus on the assessee is only to show that the ALP was computed by the assessee in accordance with the scheme of section 92 C of the Act in good faith and due diligence. It is not in dispute here that the ALP was computed in accordance with the scheme of section 92C inasmuch as Cost Plus Method was used. The TPO only substituted Cost Plus Method with TNMM and also computed the ALP of intra group services by taking the ALP as nil by applying the CUP Method. Whatever may be the merits in the action of the TPO changing the method of computation of ALP, the same cannot be a fit case for imposition of penalty inasmuch as it cannot be said that the ALP had not been computed by the assessee under the scheme of section 92C

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 3, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: A giant risk taking company like Infosys Technologies with huge significant intangibles and having huge assets leading to the exorbitant turnover is not comparable with a captive unit which is subject to minimum/ limited risk. The fact that the functional profile of Infosys is similar to that of the assessee is irrelevant

When we examine the profile of the assessee company vis-à-vis Infosys Technologies Limited in the light of the judgment in CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there is no comparability for benchmarking the international transactions for the reasons inter alia that Infosys Technologies Limited is a giant risk taking company whereas, on the other hand, the assessee is a captive unit of its parent company and prone to minimum/ limited risk; that the Infosys Technologies Limited is having huge significant intangibles and having huge assets leading to the exorbitant turnover; that it is not in dispute that functional profile of assessee company and CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is similar

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 9, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: A party is not barred in law from withdrawing from its list of comparables a company found to have been included on account of mistake of fact. The Transfer Pricing Mechanism requires comparability analysis to be done between like companies and controlled and uncontrolled transactions by carrying out of FAR analysis. The assessee's submission in arriving at the ALP is not final. It is for the TPO to examine and find out the companies listed as comparables which are in fact comparable

We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that a party is not barred in law from withdrawing from its list of comparables, a company, if the same is found to have been included on account of mistake as on facts, it is not comparable. The Transfer Pricing Mechanism requires comparability analysis to be done between like companies and controlled and uncontrolled transactions. This comparison has to be done between like companies and requires carrying out of FAR analysis to find the same. Moreover, the Assessee’s submission in arriving at the ALP is not final. It is for the TPO to examine and find out the companies listed as comparables which are, in fact comparable

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 20, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 13, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92A Transfer Pricing: The mere fact that an enterprise has de facto participation in the capital, management or control over the other enterprise does not make the two enterprises "associated enterprises" so as to subject their transactions to the rigors of transfer pricing law

A plain reading of Section 92A makes the legal position quite clear. The basic rule for treating the enterprises as associated enterprises is set out in Section 92A(1). The illustrations in which basic rule finds application are set out in Section 92A(2). Section 92A(1) lays down the basic rule that in order to be treated as associated enterprise one enterprise, in relation to another enterprise, participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, “in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise” or when “one or more persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in its management or control or capital, are the same persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise” . Section 92(A)(2) only provides illustrations of the cases in which such an enterprise participates in management, capital or control of another enterprise. In other words, what Section 92A (1) decides is the principle on the basis of which one has to examine whether or not two or more enterprise are associated enterprise or not.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing ALP of foreign advances: If the advances are made to a AE situated abroad, the LIBOR rate has to considered to determine the Arms Length interest and not the interest rate in India (SBI PLR). This would be reasonable and proper in applying commercial principles

Advances were made to the company situated abroad. The LIBOR rate naturally will be considered to determine the Arms Length interest, the same would be reasonable and proper in applying the commercial principle. The Tribunal has directed the appropriate rate would be LIBOR plus 2% instead of LIBOR plus 3% applied by the TPO

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 7, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 21, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92C +/- 5%: The contention that there is an error because mere mathematical calculation shows that the arm's length purchase price as worked out by the TPO falls beyond (+)/(-) 5% range and consequently falls outside the scope of the second proviso to s. 92C(2) cannot be considered if it was not raised before the CIT(A) & ITAT

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in directing the Assessing Officer to allow benefit of +/5% to the assessee without considering Explanation (2A) to Section 92C(2) inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2002, whereby deduction of 5% earlier being allowed by appellate authorities has been explicitly prohibited w.e.f. 1.4.2002 and therefore, the ITAT ought not to have issued such directions to the A.O. as are in contravention of the provisions of the statute

Read more ›