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-Comaparables-Turnover filter-Turnover more than Rs. 200 Crores to be excluded-Cloud services-to be excluded-Receivable-Matter remanded.

Softlayer Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)100 ITR 382 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable–Company having huge turnover and high profit margin and owning intangible intellectual property rights-Companies to be excluded-Company satisfying export turnover-To be included-Business process outsourcing activity”-Companies to be included-Working capital adjustment-Matter remanded. [S.92D R. 10B]

EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy CIT (2022)100 ITR 490 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Most Appropriate Method-Matter remanded. [S. 92D]

Dow Chemical International P. Ltd. v. ITO (2022)100 ITR 82 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparables-Companies whose turnover more than Rs. 200 Crores cannot be taken as comparable-Working capital adjustment-Matter remanded. [S.92CA]

Capco Technologies P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)100 ITR 280 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Operating costs-Reimbursement of certain costs from Associated Enterprises-No Adjustment of markup on Assessee’s claim of pass-through cost. [S. 92CA]

Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 99 ITR 506 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparables-Functionally dissimilar-Huge turnover and a giant company-Extrodinary events-Excluded from final list of comparable companies-Deferred trade receivables constitute International Transaction-Rate of Libor at six months + 400 basis points adopted by TPO was without any basis-Matter remanded. [S.92CA]

Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 99 ITR 647 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Sale of ophthalmic surgical electronic equipment, intraocular lenses, spare parts and pharmaceutical products.-Advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses-Bright Line Test-Expenditure incurred cannot be treated as International Transaction-Addition was deleted-Comparable-Functionally different companies cannot be taken as comparables. [S. 92CA]

Alcon Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2022) 99 ITR 357 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparables-Loss making companies-Losses incurred in only one year-Companies can be included-Financial statements of companies from public domain-Matter remanded-Functionally different-Equipment Different from a component manufacturing company-Cannot be compared-Working capital adjustment-Additional evidence-Matter remanded-Adjustment is restricted to International transaction with Associated enterprise [S.92CA]

TE Connectivity India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, LTU (2022) 99 ITR 379 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Turnover more than Rs.200 crores-Excluded-Working capital adjustment. [S. 92CA]

GE Be Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)99 ITR 47 (SN)(Bang)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Restricted only to the international transactions-VRS expenses-Similar cost incurred by the comparables if any also be given. [S.37(1), 92CA]

Rieter India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 215 TTJ 13 (UO) (Pune) Trib)