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 :

        2018 (9) TMI 1007 - AT - 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

        Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, rejects arbitrary adjustments, emphasizes arm's length pricing. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly, deleting the adjustments made for royalty payment and IS services. The Tribunal emphasized that the ...
                      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.

                          Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, rejects arbitrary adjustments, emphasizes arm's length pricing.

                          The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly, deleting the adjustments made for royalty payment and IS services. The Tribunal emphasized that the Transfer Pricing Officer must determine the arm's length price using prescribed methods under section 92C of the Act and found the ad-hoc adjustments arbitrary and unsustainable. The Tribunal dismissed grounds not pressed and considered the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C as consequential.




                          Issues Involved:

                          1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Royalty Payment
                          2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Information Systems (IS) Services
                          3. Levy of Interest under Section 234B and 234C

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Royalty Payment:

                          The assessee, an Indian company engaged in manufacturing and marketing industrial flavors, fragrances, and chemical specialties, entered into a technical know-how agreement with its AE, Firmenich S.A., Switzerland. The agreement required the assessee to pay royalties at 5% on local sales and 8% on export sales. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) challenged the arm's length price of the royalty payment, asserting that the assessee failed to provide detailed documentation on the intellectual properties provided by the AE. The TPO issued a show cause notice and proposed an adjustment based on external Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, suggesting royalty should be restricted to 1% of net sales. The assessee defended the royalty payment as necessary for manufacturing and marketing, citing historical consistency and FDI policy changes. The TPO, however, determined the arm's length price at 10% of the royalty paid, amounting to Rs. 2,01,19,124, and disallowed the rest under section 37(1) of the Act. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's adjustment without addressing the alternative CUP benchmarking.

                          The Tribunal found that the TPO's determination of the arm's length price on an ad-hoc basis without following any prescribed method was not legally permissible. It emphasized that the TPO must determine the arm's length price using one of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act. The Tribunal cited judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT v/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd., which held that the TPO's ad-hoc adjustment without applying a prescribed method was arbitrary and unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the adjustment made to the royalty payment, allowing the assessee's ground.

                          2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Information Systems (IS) Services:

                          The assessee paid Rs. 12,96,43,330 to its AE for availing software services, capitalizing Rs. 5,34,68,651 and claiming the balance as revenue expenditure. The TPO alleged insufficient documentation to substantiate the payment and proposed an arm's length price of Rs. 1,62,05,000 based on an estimated man-hour rate and software cost, resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 11,34,38,330. The DRP upheld the TPO's estimation but directed verification of the capitalized amount.

                          The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial documentation, including agreements, invoices, and a Chartered Accountant's report, to substantiate the payment. It held that the TPO's ad-hoc determination of the arm's length price without following any prescribed method was not permissible. The Tribunal emphasized that the TPO must determine the arm's length price using one of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act. The Tribunal deleted the adjustment made to the IS services payment, allowing the assessee's ground.

                          3. Levy of Interest under Section 234B and 234C:

                          The levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C was deemed consequential and did not require specific adjudication.

                          Conclusion:

                          The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly, deleting the adjustments made for royalty payment and IS services while dismissing grounds not pressed and considering the levy of interest as consequential.
                          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