S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–No transfer pricing adjustment can be made on transactions with the non-AEs– Matter remanded.
Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 1 (Pune) (Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–No transfer pricing adjustment can be made on transactions with the non-AEs– Matter remanded.
Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 1 (Pune) (Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–LIBOR instead of LIBOR + credit spread on account of the risk profile of the borrower.
Dy. CIT v. JSW Energy Ltd. (2020) 180 DTR 598 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Loan to AE-Interest should be charged at LIBOR+200 bps.
Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 186 DTR 19 / 203 TTJ 568 (Mum.) (Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Comparable-Directed the TPO to compute margins by taking foreign exchange fluctuations gains/loss as part of operating income both in the case of the assessee and comparable companies.
Yokogawa IA Technologies India P. Ltd v.Dy.CIT(2020) 180 ITD 621 (Bang.)(Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Additional evidence was produced–Matter remanded. [S. 254(1)]
Alan Dick & Co India (P) Ltd. v. JCIT (2020) 180 DTR 669 (Mum.) (Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–DRP was right in law in accepting the contention of assessee to grant custom duty adjustment, when the assessee has worked out the adjustment in its own hands while as per Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii), if any adjustment is to be made it should be made in the hands of comparable companies only.
ACIT v. Nord Drive Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 185 DTR 312 / 203 TTJ 266 (Pune)(Trib.)S. 92C : transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Professional fees-TNMM-CUP method–Matter remanded to the TPO.
Dy.CIT v. CarraroIndia Pvt. Ltd. (As a Successor of Turbo Gears India Pvt. Ltd.) (2020) 185 DTR 78 / 203 TTJ 623 (Pune)(Trib.)S. 92B : Transfer pricing–Corporate guarantee-International transaction-Directed to take 1% as arm’s length price. [S. 92C]
Unitech Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 180 ITD 653 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 70 : Set off of loss–Long term capital loss against long term capital gains-Long term capital loss arising out of sale of shares cannot be set off against long-term capital gain from sale of shares subjected to STT and claimed exempt u/s. 10 (38)-Directed the AO to allow carry forward of long term capital loss as claimed by the assessee.[S. 2(14) 10(38), 45, 74]
Nomura India Investment Fund Mother Fund v. ADIT(IT) (2020) 186 DTR 212 / 203 TTJ 660 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 69 : Unexplained investments–Income from undisclosed source-Alleged sale of scraps-Addition is held to be not justified.[S. 4, 145]
Agrasen Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 197/ 203 TTJ 498 (Jaipur)(Trib.)