This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 92C : Transfer Pricing-Arm’s Length Price-Manufacturing and marketing-Transactional Net Margin Method most appropriate-Transfer Pricing Officer’s Reasoning of constructing a hypothetical comparable uncontrolled price based on study of third party scenario is not envisaged [S.92CA]

Bostik India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 25 (SN) (Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer Pricing-Arm’s Length Price-Comparables-Government of India Company not Comparable with Assessee-Excluded from List of Comparables. [S.92CA]

Dy. CIT v. Bmc Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2022)96 ITR 18 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Software development services-Working capital adjustment on account of outstanding receivables-Matter remanded. [S.92CA]

Xchanging Solutions Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 544 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparables-Companies with turnover in excess of Rs. 200 Crores-Not comparable.

Xchanging Solutions Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 544 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Net margin method-Support services to its associated enterprises-Transfer Pricing Officer discarding transactional net margin method adopted by assessee and accepted by Department for several years without assigning any specific reason-Held to be not proper. [S.92CA]

Sabic India Pvt. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 368 (Trib)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Fees for managerial services-No evidence of nature of services rendered-Transfer Pricing adjustment required for consideration paid for services. [S. 92CA]

Lite-On Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 96 ITR 352 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Change in method of revenue recognition deferring recognition of revenue-Assessing Officer to give consequential relief in year in which revenue deferred was offered to tax. [S. 145]

U.L. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 191 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Related party transactions-Threshold limit for applying related party transaction filter should Be 15 Per Cent. or 25 Per Cent. depending upon the availability of comparable companies.

U.L. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 96 ITR 191 (Bang.) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Having high turnover-Turnover is a relevant criterion for choosing comparable [R. 10B]

U.L. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 191 (Trib)(Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparables-Assessee Engaged In Offshore Information Technology Enabled Services-Not to be included in list of comparables-Company having different financial year-Results of company for relevant financial year could be carved out-To be included in list of comparables-Working Capital Adjustment-Allowable on actual basis without any restriction.

U.L. India Pvt. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 191 (Bang)(Trib)