Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT v. Gujarat Microwax (P) Ltd. (2022) 216 DTR 65 / 218 TTJ 432 / 142 taxmann.com 357 (Ahd)(Trib).

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Aggregation- Aggregation is not a rule of blind application and it is to be applied in certain situations and there has to be a scientific or rational basis for adoption; unless characteristic of ‘closely-linked’ is satisfied, aggregation is not possible-Matter remanded.

Trimble Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 217 DTR 257 / 219 TTJ 659 / 141 taxmann.com 331 (Mum)(Trib).

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length-Commercial expediency of expenditure-No separate adjustment is required to be made.

SS Oral Hygine Products (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 219 DTR 225 / 220 TTJ 939 / 145 taxmann.com 285 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Technical assistance received-Order of CIT (A) giving relief was not challenged-Addition was deleted.

McCain Foods India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 215 DTR 148 / 218 TTJ 393 / 141 taxmann.com 164 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Adjustmnet of management fee-Disallowed under section 40(a)(i)-Disllaowing the same for Transfer pricing adjustment will lead to taxing the same amount twice-Addition was deleted.[S. 40(a)(i), 154]

Norton Lifelock Software Solution (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 215 DTR 279 / 220 TTJ 527 / 135 taxmann.com 247 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Negative margin-Comaprable-Segmental details relating to various segments were not available–Sale of software license-Segmental details relating to revenue earned were not discernible-Could not be selected as comparable. [S. 92CA]

A Raymood Fasteners India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 215 TTJ 228 / [2022] 134 taxmann.com 145 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Failure to place verifiable information-Justified in rejecting as tested party-Turnover filter-Difference in turnover is not substantial-Cannot be excluded-Adjustment should be restricted only to international transactions and not entity level transactions. [S. 92CA]

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 133 taxmann.com 500 / (2022) 216 TTJ 656 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Guarantee commission fee of 1 percent-Held to be reasonable-Followed order of earlier year-Share capital-Adjustment of interest to be made with other loans giving similar privilege-Business expenditure-TPO only has to ascertain arm’s length price of a transaction and it is not TPO’s job to decide whether a business enterprise should have incurred a particular expense or not. [S. 37(1), 92CA]

DCM Shriram Ltd. v. Addl CIT (2022) 215 TTJ 299 / 212 DTR 201 / 140 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Captive power plants-Eligible business-(State Electricity Board (SEB)-Transaction of transfer of power in Rajasthan from eligible unit to non-eligible unit should be benchmarked at purchase price of power from SEB-Steam cannot be determined at nil. [S. 80IA 92BA]

Dy. CIT v. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd (2022) 213 DTR 1/ 217 TTJ 231/ 141 taxmann.com 192 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Manufacturing of compressors and mining & production tools-Four types of cost-TPO was not justified in considering only two expenses, namely, manufacturing and marketing as contributing to earning of profits. [S. 92CA]

Neilsoft (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 209 DTR 225/ 215 TTJ 545 / 136 taxmann.com 66 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Engineering design services-Separate segmental accounts-Adjustment made by TPO was deleted. [S. 92CA]