Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Hyundai Construction Equipment India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 208 DTR 449/(2022) 215 TTJ 383 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Subsidy received under Incentive Scheme of Government of Maharashtra-Capital receipt-Cannot form part of operating revenue of manufacturing segment for the purpose of determining ALP under the TNMM-Excess custom duty paid cannot be reduced by the difference in the amount of customs duty.

ACIT v. Nalco Water India Ltd (2021) 208 DTR 85/ 133 taxmann.com 531 /(2022) 215 TTJ 551 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Payment to intra-group services and not stewardship activity-ALP determination was not adjudicated-No ground was raised by the revenue.

A Raymond Fasteners India (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 208 DTR 407 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Selection of comparables-Not produced relevant information of the Foreign AEs-Assessee itself is to be treated as the tested party-When the capacity utilization figures of the comparable are not available, ALP can be determined with gross profit margins only qua raw material cost to the exclusion of direct expenses-Turnover filter-Adjustment to be made at entry level only to the value of international transactions. [R. 10B(1)(e)]

Knorr Bremse Systems for Commercial Vehicles India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 198 DTR 196 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-TP adjustments should be restricted to the AE transactions only-Reversal of provision for write back-Matter remanded-VAT refund-Non operating and ice versa-Miscellaneous income-Can not be considered as operating income. [R. 10B]

DCIT. v Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. (2021) 209 TTJ 364 / 198 DTR 1 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Recharacterization of the transaction of debt in to equity is not approved-Bench marking of interest payment to AES at 13. 75 % matter remanded-Additional ground on Education cess was allowed. [S. 94B]

ERM India (P.) Ltd. v. NEAC (2021) 91 ITR 24 (SN) / (2022) 192 ITD 115 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Interest on outstanding receivables-Adjustment is not warranted if pricing/profitability of assessee is more than working capital adjusted margin of comparables companies.

Roxtec India Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT (2021) 210 TTJ 116 / 199 DTR 1 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Assembling of products and sold to customers-TPO was justified in rejecting the RPM and adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method. [R. 10B]

Mtu India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 211 TTJ 978 / 203 DTR 390 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Operating revenue expenses incurred-Order set aside-TP adjustment are only in respect of international transactions and not entry level transactions. [S. 92]

Hyundai Construction India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 213 TTJ 216 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Customs duty paid-Adjustment is not warranted-Selection of comparable-BEML being a Government company cannot be included in the list of comparables. [R. 10B(1)]

ACIT v. Hyundai Construction India (P) Ltd. (2021) 213 TTJ 203 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-BEM being a Government company-Not includible in the list of comparables-99.65 per cent of the manufacturing activity of JCB Ltd is functionally similar-Included in the comparables. [R. 10B]