Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2017 (12) TMI 934 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        High Court Upholds ITAT's Ruling on Royalty Rates & Transfer Pricing Adjustments The High Court upheld the findings of the ITAT, dismissing the appeal regarding the attribution of income based on international transactions under ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            High Court Upholds ITAT's Ruling on Royalty Rates & Transfer Pricing Adjustments

                            The High Court upheld the findings of the ITAT, dismissing the appeal regarding the attribution of income based on international transactions under Section 92B. The Court supported the adjustments made by the TPO in computing royalty rates, considering the evolution of the agreement and changes in shareholding. Additionally, the Court affirmed the determination of the arm's length price for royalty payments, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the case and the lack of comparables. Transfer pricing adjustments under Section 92C were deemed applicable, highlighting the need for thorough analysis in such cases. The treatment of Dabur brand usage as an international transaction was also upheld, concluding the dispute.




                            Issues:
                            1. Attribution of income based on international transaction under Section 92B.
                            2. Determination of arm's length price for royalty payments.
                            3. Applicability of transfer pricing adjustments under Section 92C.
                            4. Consideration of comparables for determining royalty rates.
                            5. Treatment of Dabur brand usage as an international transaction.

                            Issue 1: Attribution of income based on international transaction under Section 92B

                            The assessee contended that the findings affirmed by the ITAT were erroneous as there was no international transaction as per Section 92B, thus challenging the attribution of income under Section 92C. The High Court noted the history of the agreement between the assessee and the overseas entity, highlighting the evolution of royalty payments and the subsequent changes in shareholding. The TPO computed royalty rates based on the agreement and the nature of technical support provided, leading to adjustments in the assessment. The CIT(A) modified the ALP determination, considering the appellant's arguments regarding comparables under Section 92C and Rule 10B. The High Court analyzed the arguments presented by the appellant and upheld the findings of the ITAT, dismissing the appeal.

                            Issue 2: Determination of arm's length price for royalty payments

                            The dispute revolved around the determination of the arm's length price for royalty payments made by the overseas entity to the assessee. The CIT(A) reduced the royalty rate to 2% after considering the nature of transactions and technical support provided. The ITAT further scaled down the royalty rate to 0.75% based on the absence of comparables and the unique circumstances of the case. The High Court reviewed the arguments regarding the brand usage and the absence of consideration for establishing the trade name, ultimately supporting the ITAT's decision on the arm's length price determination.

                            Issue 3: Applicability of transfer pricing adjustments under Section 92C

                            The High Court examined the application of transfer pricing adjustments under Section 92C in the context of determining the arm's length price for royalty payments. The ITAT highlighted the lack of comparables and the unique nature of the FMCG products manufactured by the overseas entity. The Court agreed with the ITAT's approach, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of similar payments received by independent entities for making transfer pricing adjustments.

                            Issue 4: Consideration of comparables for determining royalty rates

                            The dispute included the consideration of comparables for determining royalty rates, with the appellant arguing against the applicability of past assessments as comparables. The ITAT and the High Court emphasized the importance of analyzing similar payments received by comparable entities and the unique circumstances of the case in determining the arm's length price for royalty payments.

                            Issue 5: Treatment of Dabur brand usage as an international transaction

                            The contention regarding the treatment of Dabur brand usage as an international transaction was a key point of dispute. The High Court analyzed the evolution of the brand usage agreement and the changes in shareholding, emphasizing the need to treat royalty arising from the brand usage as an international transaction. The Court dismissed the appeal, supporting the findings of the ITAT and the CIT(A) regarding the nature of the brand usage agreement and the arm's length price determination.

                            This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Court's findings regarding the attribution of income, determination of arm's length price, applicability of transfer pricing adjustments, consideration of comparables, and the treatment of Dabur brand usage as an international transaction.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found