Your browser will redirect to your requested content alia investments pvt ltd. Please forward this error screen to 138.
The author has meticulously and systematically classified the judgments into various categories to enable ease of reference. A PDF copy of the digest is available for download. The Digest comprises of all the important judgements dealing with transfer pricing, international taxes and domestic taxation laws. A brief head note is given for each case.
The Tribunal held that where business relations between assessee and entities were so insignificant that export sales made to them were less than 5 per cent of its entire sales and there was no element of de facto control they could not be treated as AEs under section 92A. The Tribunal remitted the issue relating to existence of international transaction of AMP expenses incurred by the assessee to the file of the TPO for fresh consideration considering the assessee’s reliance on the decision of the Court in Maruti Suzuki which was not available before the TPO. AE in respect of contract with BCCI for promotion and brand building of Nike is an international transaction noting that the assessee incurred the expenditure for the promotion of brand Nike and the agreement between assessee and AE acknowledged that BCCI Agreement would provide suitable benefit for Nike brands in the territory. TP adjustment made by the TPO.
The Tribunal held that in the case of public sector companies, even as all or majority of the shareholdings may be by the union or state governments, these companies for that reason alone cannot be said to be associated enterprises for the purpose of section 92A. The Tribunal upheld the TPOs adoption of the CUP method over TNMM for benchmarking the stock broking services rendered by the assessee to its AE with respect to Clearing House Trades considering the high degree of comparability between the assessee and top 10 FII customers selected by the TPO as comparables. It held that since the terms and conditions of clearing house trade for the assessee and the FIIs were the same, there was no justification in adopting any other method. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment made on interest free advances given by assessee to its wholly owned subsidiary in USA whose capital stood completely eroded and who was suffering continuous losses, on the ground that finding a comparable uncontrolled transaction under the CUP method applied by the TPO by considering LIBOR plus rate for Exim loan as ALP for such a transaction was not practical or feasible CUP method. DRP in preference to TNMM adopted by the assessee for benchmarking assessee’s exports of various types of sewing threads to its AEs situated in 63 countries based on its decision in earlier years and agreed with the DRP finding that since assessee was catering to Asian countries, there was not much geographical difference between supplies made by it to AEs and Non-AEs. TP adjustment made in respect of import of Liquefied Natural Gas by the assessee from its foreign AE and upheld the use of Resale Price Method as most appropriate method over the Revenue’s adoption of CUP.