Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 182 ITD 312 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Reimbursement of expenses-Bright-Line Text (BLT)-Interest-TPO could not have determined 30 days as credit period for computing interest on outstanding receivables, without appreciating actual credit terms offered to AEs.

Schindler India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 182 ITD 84 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Turnover filter-To be accepted as valid comparable.

Nagarro Software (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 182 ITD 128 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparble-Customised software development on contractual basis Job placement portal and BPO services-Dissimilarity in functions and for want of segmental accounts-Sponsorship fees and other expenses, said company was to be excluded from final set of comparables-Turnover more than 750 time cannot be considered as comparable-Profit margin-Sale of licence-Sale of software and products.

NXP India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 182 ITD 163 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Software development-Directed to pass speaking order-Working capital-computed by taking actual data without putting any upper limit-Ad-hoc estimate of risk differential was directed to recompute. [S. 144C]

Mformation Software Technologies (I) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 182 ITD 78 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Functionally different-Companies having turn over of 10 times greater cannot be considered as comparable companies.

Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (2020) 182 ITD 189 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Software development-Size and economies of scale/high risk companies-Functionally different-providing Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) To be excluded from final list of comparables-Working capital adjustment was directed to be allowed on actual basis.

Diageo India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 182 ITD 362 / 205 TTJ 622 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-AMP expenses-TPO cannot be debarred from examining said international transaction with respect to arm’s length price.[S. 92B]

Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 182 ITD 274 /77 ITR 52 (SN)/203 TTJ 691/186 DTR 50 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Addition of 10 percent-Allocation of expenses-Held to be not justified.

ACIT v. ITC Infotech India Ltd. (2020) 182 ITD 101/(2021) 209 TTJ 735 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Tested party-Cost Plus Method (CPM)-Audit of segmental accounts-Cannot be rejected on the ground that the Accounts of overseas entities were not audited.

Aithent Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 182 ITD 169 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Matter remanded to the TPO-Turnover cap-Goodwill-Loss making companies-Size and Economies of Sale/High Risk Companies.