S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Corporate guarantee-ALP adjustment on account of corporate guarantee restricted to 0.35%. [
Sikka Ports & Terminals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 219 TTJ 159 / 217 DTR 75 / 140 taxmann.com 211 (Mum)(Trib)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Corporate guarantee-ALP adjustment on account of corporate guarantee restricted to 0.35%. [
Sikka Ports & Terminals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 219 TTJ 159 / 217 DTR 75 / 140 taxmann.com 211 (Mum)(Trib)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Guarantee commission-Directed to compute TP adjustment at the rate of 0.5 percent.
Siddhayu Ayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 219 TTJ 881 / 218 DTR 113 / 98 ITR 46 (SN) /142 taxmann.com 572 (Mum) (Trib)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Technical assistance fee-Rule of consistency-Adjustment was deleted. [S.92A]
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-Management fees-Followed order of earlier year-Addition was deleted [S. 92CA]
Metalsa India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 209 DTR 1 /215 TTJ 137 (Delhi)(Trib)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price of guarantee commission-Arm’s length guarantee commission charge should be restricted at 0.5% .
63 Moon Technologies Limited v. DY.CIT (2022) 215 TTJ 455 (Mum)(Trib)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-TPO did not give any analysis to demonstrate how purchase of any material by eligible units from non-eligible units could have yielded extra profits-No downward adjustment of profit of eligible units (S. 80-IA(10)
Greenply Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 219 TTJ 257/220 DTR 18 / 143 taxmann.com 364 (Gauhati) (Trib)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price of guarantee commission-Arm’s length guarantee commission charge should be restricted at 0.5%
Greenply Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 219 TTJ 257/220 DTR 18 / 143 taxmann.com 364 (Gauhati) (Trib)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to international transactions and not at entity level [Rule. 10AB]
A Raymond Fasteners India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022)215 TTJ 228/ 134 taxmann.com 145 (Pune) (Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Provision for bad debts to be treated as non-operating expenditure for purpose of computing profitability under transfer pricing provisions-Companies having bad debt should be considered in final set of comparables-Remanded. [S.92CA]
Honeywell Automation India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)95 ITR 51 /209 DTR 145 /215 TTJ 794 (Pune) (Trib)S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Working capital adjustment-Question of adjustment on negative working capital does not arise-Selection of comparables-Companies engaged in diversified activities and earning revenue from various activities and no segmental data available, companies not passing employee cost filter, cannot be taken as comparable-On facts rejection of rental expenses is held to be proper. [S.92CA]
Harman Connected Services Corporation India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)95 ITR 1 (Bang) (Trib)