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-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)