{"id":60715,"date":"2026-06-12T15:44:40","date_gmt":"2026-06-12T10:14:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-toyota-tsusho-india-p-ltd-2025-307-taxman-135-karn-hc\/"},"modified":"2026-06-12T15:44:40","modified_gmt":"2026-06-12T10:14:40","slug":"pcit-v-toyota-tsusho-india-p-ltd-2025-307-taxman-135-karn-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-toyota-tsusho-india-p-ltd-2025-307-taxman-135-karn-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Toyota Tsusho India (P.) Ltd. (2025) 307 Taxman 135 (Karn.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee was engaged in the trading of automobile components, processing of steel products and providing logistic services, primarily catering to the automotive industry. It filed its return declaring a loss of a certain amount. Assessing Officer made a reference to TPO for determination of arm&#8217;s length price of international transactions of assessee with its AEs. TPO rejected comparables selected by the assessee and computed the transfer pricing adjustment. DRP upheld the same. Tribunal held that under CBDT Notification No. 30\/2013, tolerance was 1 per cent for wholesale traders and 3 per cent for others. As per Notification No. 86\/2015, wholesale trading required (i) purchase cost \u226580 per cent of total cost and (ii) average monthly inventory \u226410 per cent of sales. Assessee satisfied the first condition but not the second, as its average inventory exceeded 10 per cent of sales. Since the assessee did not cumulatively satisfy both conditions, it could not be classified as a wholesale trader and therefore was not entitled to \u00b13 per cent tolerance. Order of Tribunal affirmed.\u00a0 CBDT Notification No.30\/2013 dated 15-4-2013 and Notification No.86\/2015 dated 29-10-2015.(AY. 2013-14)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm\u2019s length price-Cannot be treated as a wholesale trader-Tolerance limit of  \u00b13 per cent is applicable.[S. 260A]  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fNh","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60715","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60715"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60715\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60716,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60715\/revisions\/60716"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}