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 :

        2022 (9) TMI 146 - 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

        ITAT overturns TPO decision on 'Nil' pricing, stresses proper benchmarking methods. The ITAT allowed the appeal, finding that the Transfer Pricing Officer erred in determining the Arm's Length Price at 'Nil' without proper benchmarking. ...
                      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.

                          ITAT overturns TPO decision on "Nil" pricing, stresses proper benchmarking methods.

                          The ITAT allowed the appeal, finding that the Transfer Pricing Officer erred in determining the Arm's Length Price at "Nil" without proper benchmarking. The ITAT emphasized the necessity of using prescribed methods under the Income Tax Act and Rules. The provided evidence supported the receipt of India-specific services, contradicting the TPO's view. The decision requires a reassessment of the Arm's Length Price using appropriate benchmarking methods.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Intra-Group Services.
                          2. Directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and their compliance.
                          3. Benchmarking Methodology and Arm's Length Price (ALP) Determination.
                          4. Justification and Evidence for Intra-Group Services.
                          5. Jurisdiction and Methodology of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
                          6. Penalty and Interest Levied.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Intra-Group Services:
                          The primary issue revolves around the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 309,156,218 made by the TPO in respect of payments for intra-group services availed by the assessee from its Associated Enterprises (AEs), namely INEOS Germany and INEOS Singapore. The TPO determined the ALP of these services as "Nil," asserting that no independent entity would pay for such services. The services in question include Global Head Office (GHO) and Regional Head Office (RHO) charges.

                          2. Directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and their Compliance:
                          The DRP confirmed most of the TPO's adjustments while providing some relief by addressing dual disallowance and incorrect additions. The DRP endorsed the TPO's findings that the services were too general and overlapped with other payments like royalties and local expenses. The DRP also upheld the TPO's rejection of the markup on cost allocations.

                          3. Benchmarking Methodology and Arm's Length Price (ALP) Determination:
                          The TPO rejected the benchmarking approach adopted by the assessee, which used the foreign AE as the tested party and foreign databases. The TPO determined the ALP using "any other method," concluding that no independent party would pay for such services. The ITAT criticized this approach, emphasizing that the TPO must use one of the prescribed methods under section 92C(1) and cannot determine the ALP at "Nil" without proper benchmarking.

                          4. Justification and Evidence for Intra-Group Services:
                          The assessee provided substantial evidence, including emails and documentation, to substantiate the receipt of India-specific services from its global and regional headquarters. The ITAT found that the TPO and DRP did not fully appreciate this evidence. The ITAT highlighted that the services provided were not merely general but offered specific benefits to the Indian entity.

                          5. Jurisdiction and Methodology of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO):
                          The ITAT held that the TPO took a restrictive view and failed to apply any of the prescribed methods for determining the ALP. The TPO's determination of the ALP at "Nil" was deemed unsustainable. The ITAT cited several judicial precedents supporting the view that the TPO must use one of the prescribed methods and cannot arbitrarily determine the ALP at "Nil."

                          6. Penalty and Interest Levied:
                          The assessee contested the computation of demand and the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. The ITAT's decision to allow the appeal implies that these penalties and interest may be reconsidered in light of the revised assessment.

                          Conclusion:
                          The ITAT allowed the appeal, concluding that the TPO erred in determining the ALP at "Nil" without applying any prescribed benchmarking method. The ITAT emphasized the need for a proper transfer pricing exercise using one of the methods prescribed under the Income Tax Act and Rules. The substantial evidence provided by the assessee demonstrated the receipt of India-specific services, and the TPO's restrictive view was not justified. The ITAT's decision mandates a reassessment of the ALP using appropriate benchmarking methods.
                          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