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 allows appeal, upholds TNMM method, rejects TPO adjustments, and grants relief to assessee</h1> <h3>M/s. Eaton Fluid Power Limited Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-8,</h3> M/s. Eaton Fluid Power Limited Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-8, - [2018] 64 ITR (Trib) 578 Issues Involved:1. Adjustment to the transfer price proposed by the TPO and upheld by the DRP.2. Segmentation of the Appellant’s operations into manufacturing and trading segments.3. Computation of the arm's length price using internal comparables versus external comparables.4. Selection and rejection of certain external comparables.5. Application of adjustment on the entire cost base of the relevant segment.6. Rejection of multiple-year data in transfer pricing analysis.7. Transfer pricing adjustment for payments made for IT services, determining the arm's length price as 'Nil.'Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Adjustment to the Transfer Price:The TPO adjusted the transfer price of international transactions entered by the assessee with its associated enterprises, resulting in an upward adjustment of Rs. 4,88,23,152/-. The DRP upheld this adjustment, leading to an assessed income higher than the returned income. The Tribunal found that the TPO's benchmarking using external comparables was inappropriate, and internal TNMM method should have been applied, as the internal margins were higher.2. Segmentation of Operations:The TPO segmented the assessee's operations into manufacturing and trading activities, benchmarking them separately. The assessee argued that both activities were interlinked and should not be separated. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's view, noting that internal TNMM method was appropriate for benchmarking the manufacturing segment, as decided in the earlier assessment year 2007-08.3. Computation of Arm's Length Price:The assessee contended that the arm's length price should be computed using internal comparables rather than external comparables. The Tribunal agreed, stating that internal comparables have a more direct and closer relationship to the tested transactions. The internal TNMM method showed higher margins for associated enterprises, indicating no need for adjustment.4. Selection and Rejection of Comparables:The TPO rejected certain external comparables selected by the assessee and accepted new ones. The Tribunal found the TPO's rejection of internal TNMM method and selection of external comparables inconsistent and unjustified, especially when internal comparables were available and more relevant.5. Application of Adjustment on Entire Cost Base:The TPO applied the adjustment on the entire cost base of the relevant segment. The Tribunal found this approach incorrect, as the internal TNMM method indicated that the profitability from transactions with associated enterprises was higher than with third parties, negating the need for such an adjustment.6. Rejection of Multiple-Year Data:The TPO rejected the use of multiple-year data in the transfer pricing analysis. The Tribunal did not find merit in this rejection, as the internal TNMM method, which was based on multiple-year data, was more appropriate and showed higher margins for associated enterprises.7. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for IT Services:The TPO determined the arm's length price of IT services availed from associated enterprises as 'Nil,' citing lack of evidence for services rendered and benefit derived. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the TPO's role is to determine the arm's length price, not to question the commercial wisdom of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including agreements, certificates, and internal documentation, proving the receipt and benefit of IT services. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the TPO's adjustment and accepted the assessee's claim.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, holding that the internal TNMM method was appropriate for benchmarking the international transactions, negating the need for adjustments proposed by the TPO. The Tribunal also reversed the adjustment for IT services, recognizing the evidence provided by the assessee. The appeal was thus partly allowed, providing relief to the assessee.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found