Six Important Verdicts On Transfer Pricing + S. 147 Reopening + S. 80-IB + Biz Exp Disallowan​ce

ACIT vs. Convergys India Service (P) Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

Transfer Pricing: Comparables with more than 25% RPTs have to be excluded. There are no fetters on the assessee's right to claim that a comparable included by him should be excluded
(i) The principal question about the exclusion of companies with more than 25% RPTs from the list of comparables on account of these becoming controlled transactions, has been fairly decided by various benches of the Tribunal. It has been held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Agilent Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT […]

DCIT vs. Alcatel India Limited (ITAT Delhi)

Transfer Pricing: ALP adjustments can only be made in respect of international transactions with the AEs and cannot extend to the transactions with non AEs
It is well settled legal position that the ALP adjustments can only be made in respect of international transactions with the AEs and cannot extend to the transactions with non AEs. There are large number decisions of the coordinate benches, including in the case of Alstom Projects India Ltd Vs ACIT [26 ITR (Trib) 322], […]

XL India Business Services Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 147: After the expiry of the time limit for issue of s. 143(2) notice, the AO has no jurisdiction to make a reference to the TPO. The TPO's report cannot form the basis for reopening the assessment
The assessee filed the return of income of 29th October 2007, and that the time limit for issuance of notice, under section 143(2), selecting the case for scrutiny assessment expired on 30th September 2008. It is also an admitted position that it was only on 24th December 2009 that the Assessing Officer made a reference, […]

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Transfer Pricing: Law on aggregation of several international transactions to determine the Arms' Length Price explained
1) Whether the payment of royalty is interlinked and interconnected with the other international transactions of the assessee with its AE’s? 2) Where different international transactions with the AE are interconnected and interlinked, whether the aggregation of the transactions is required and the comparables are also be considered on aggregate basis. (i) As per the […]

DCIT vs. Coromandel International Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad)

S. 80-IB: Excise duty refund is "derived" from the undertaking. Liberty India 316 ITR 218 (SC) is distinguishable
The AO has denied 80IB deduction on excise duty refund for the sole reason that it cannot be treated as income derived from eligible business of the undertaking. However, as can be seen from the facts brought on record, there is no dispute that assessee has paid the excise duty on the goods manufactured and […]

ACIT vs. Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 37(1): Non-compete fee to ex-MD is revenue expenditure
A payment has to be seen from the context of commercial and business expediency. If the outgoing expenditure is so inextricably linked or related to carrying on or conduct of the business, that is, it can be regarded as integral part of the profit earning process and not for any acquisition of asset or a […]