Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rules interest on international loans by assessee to associated enterprises at arm's length</h1> <h3>Indegene Lifesystems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11 (4), Bangalore</h3> Indegene Lifesystems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11 (4), Bangalore - TMI Issues Involved:1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) u/s. 92 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for international loans given to associated enterprises (AEs).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) u/s. 92 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for international loans given to associated enterprises (AEs):The primary issue in this appeal concerns the determination of the arm's length price (ALP) for interest charged by the assessee on loans given to its associated enterprises (AEs) located in the USA, Singapore, and Australia. The assessee had charged interest rates of 10% per annum on these loans, which were provided for capital investment and business development.The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) considered corporate bonds issued by companies in India as comparables, arguing that corporate bonds carry both interest and credit risks, unlike government bonds. The TPO categorized the loans as high-risk, similar to BB-rated corporate bonds, and computed an interest rate of 17.26%.The assessee contended that the loans were provided to 100% subsidiaries and thus the risks associated with third-party lending did not apply. The assessee argued that the loans were given for business reasons and were convertible into equity, emphasizing that the loans were funded from surplus cash, not borrowed funds. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, arguing that the ALP for international loans should be determined using LIBOR rates, which are internationally recognized.The TPO rejected the use of LIBOR rates, stating that the decisions supporting LIBOR had not attained finality. The TPO applied a 17.26% interest rate, resulting in an ALP of Rs. 1,15,01,312 compared to the Rs. 67,16,992 charged by the assessee, leading to an adjustment of Rs. 47,84,320.The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's approach, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee reiterated its arguments, emphasizing the appropriateness of using LIBOR rates and the geographical differences between the associated enterprises and the comparables selected by the TPO.Upon review, the Tribunal considered judicial precedents, including decisions from the ITAT Bangalore Bench and Mumbai Bench, which supported the use of LIBOR rates for determining ALP in international loan transactions. The Tribunal noted that the interest rates charged by the assessee were higher than LIBOR rates and that the decisions cited by the assessee had not been overruled.The Tribunal concluded that the ALP for the international loan transactions should be determined based on LIBOR rates, as these are internationally recognized and adopted. Consequently, the interest charged by the assessee was deemed to be at arm's length, and the appeal was allowed.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the interest charged by the assessee on international loans to its associated enterprises was at arm's length when compared to LIBOR rates. The adjustment made by the TPO was deemed unsustainable, and the interest rates applied by the assessee were upheld.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found