Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)Section 92C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 92B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Seshasayee Paper & Board Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 May, 2015
Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 37 SOT 306 (Mum.Tribunal) and Dy. CIT v. Vertex
Customer Services India (P.)Ltd. [2009] 34 SOT 532 (Delhi). 34. The DR submitted that
segmental total cost not available and that the subsidiary in India incurred a loss due to
which the entire investment as well as recoverable advance had been fully provided for in the
books of account. Being so it is not comparable with the assessee company. 35. We have
considered the arguments of both the parties. In our considered view for computing the net
margin of the assessee for the purpose of transfer pricing only the cost related to the
transaction with the AEs has to be considered and accordingly, we agree with the argument
that segmental financial data is to be considered for the purpose of arriving at the net margin
on an international transaction with the assessee's enterprises in respect of transactions
carried on by the assessee.
Dcit, Cir-1(1), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Landis + Gyr Ltd., Kolkata on 13 September, 2017
This view of ours is also supported by the order of the Hyderabad
Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Foursoft Ltd. vs. DCIT (62 DTR 308) (Hyd). Same view
has been taken by the Tribunal in various cases stated by the assessee."
Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr on 1 March, 2011
wherein the Chennai Tribunal, placing
reliance on the decision rendered in the matter of 3iInfotec Ltd. v. ITO reported in [2013] 35
txmann.com 582 (Chennai - Trib), held that even if such segmental results were not shown in
the audited financial accounts, they had to be accepted. The Coordinate Bench in the matter
of InfotecLtd.
M/S Vodafone East Limited (Formerly ... vs Acit, Cir-7, Kolkata, Kolkata on 15 December, 2017
Ltd vs. ACIT (supra)held that the
AO/TPO/DRP erred in disregarding the segmental result of the taxpayer by proceeding to
consider the margin of the taxpayer at the entity level for the transfer pricing analysis.
Section 10A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. J.C.B. Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 12 December, 2017
15. We note that the decision of the coordinate Delhi bench of this Tribunal in the case
of JCB India Ltd Vs DCIT (69 taxmann.com 383) is of much relevance. In the decided case
the assessee had international transactions with AEs inter alia including payment of royalty
on sales and import of raw materials. It was the argument of the assessee that these
transactions should be aggregated and benchmarked under TNMM on entity level. The
Tribunal however did not find merit in this contention as because the payment of royalty
pertained to marketing & distribution functions whereas the import of raw materials was a
part of manufacturing activities. The Tribunal found that these two set of transactions were
neither inter-linked or closely connected having regard to their respective FAR and
therefore upheld the Revenue's contention that these transactions should be benchmarked
separately viz., royalty under CUP Method and import of raw materials under TNMM. The
relevant extracts of this decision is as follows: