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. 9C : Transfer pricing—Functionally Different-Cannot be considered for comparable.

Dy.CIT v. Philips Electronics India Limited. (2018) 196 TTJ 1031 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-TNMM- Once a comparable was found functionally similar and further authentic and reliable financial data were available relevant to accounting period of assessee then merely comparable had different FY, it could not be excluded- TP adjustment made on outstanding receivable beyond 30 days credit period applying interest rate of 14.88% p.a. and computing interest receivable is held to be justified.

BT E-Serv (India) P. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 195 TTJ 137 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arms length price-Items like spares, accessories, batteries are used by assessee in discharge its obligation of warranty or replacement of damaged items in transportation then no transfer pricing adjustment required to be made in respect of Purchase of finished goods and spares.

Dy.CIT v. Eaton Power Quality Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 195 TTJ 367 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits–Logistic solutions-Airline companies – Identity of payee and genuineness of transaction is not doubted – Disallowance was deleted.

KGL Network (P) Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2018) 195 TTJ 265/(2019) 176 DTR 102 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source– Commission-Incentive to retailers-Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 194H]

Anil Dhawan v. Dy.CIT (2018) 195 TTJ 42 (UO) (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident–Providing services of AMC and installation, commissioning services, for equipment supplied by its group entities to customers in India – Not liable to deduct ta at source- DTAA-India –USA [S.195, Art .12 (4)]

Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 196 TTJ 425 //( 2019) 176 DTR 262 / 98 taxmann.com 458 (Delhi)( Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident–Airfreight-Payments on behalf of its clients as Clearing and Forwarding Agent which were reimbursed-Expenditure was not claimed as deduction- No disallowance can be made. [S.44B, 172]

KGL Network (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 195 TTJ 265 / (2019) 176 DTR 102 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 10AA : Special economic zones-Merely because consideration was received after 6 months from close of FY, deduction could not be denied to assessee on such sum—AO was directed to consider a sum as export turnover – Deduction cannot be allowed on unbilled revenue as it does not qualify the definition of export and export turnover. [S. 10A(3)]

BT E-Serv (India) P. Ltd v. (2018) 195 TTJ 137 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Royalty-fee for technical services-Income from offshore sale of products could not be construed to be FTS or royalty liable to tax in India–DTAA-India-Australia.

Cameron Australasia Pty. Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2018) 66 ITR 262 / 196 TTJ 39(2019) 175 DTR 386 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S.92C: Transfer pricing—Selection of comparables—Functionally different—IT enabled services- TNMM – Software developer could not be functionally comparable with a pure captive service provider – Foreign exchange gain or loss is part of operating expenditure/ income.

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd v.Dy .CIT ( 2017) 83 taxmann.com 345/ (2018) 196 TTJ 283 (Delhi)(Trib)