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 :

        2024 (6) TMI 408 - 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

        Assessee wins transfer pricing appeal after TPO sets arm's length price at zero for insufficient service proof ITAT Indore allowed the assessee's appeal in a transfer pricing case. The TPO had determined the arm's length price (ALP) of impugned transactions at Rs. ...
                        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.

                            Assessee wins transfer pricing appeal after TPO sets arm's length price at zero for insufficient service proof

                            ITAT Indore allowed the assessee's appeal in a transfer pricing case. The TPO had determined the arm's length price (ALP) of impugned transactions at Rs. Nil, finding insufficient proof that services were actually received. The assessee cited COVID-19 constraints and only five days allowed by TPO for document submission. ITAT admitted additional evidence under Rule 29, noting it was substantial and critical to the case. The matter was remanded to AO/TPO for fresh consideration with proper opportunity for submissions. ITAT also directed authorities to consider the 3% benefit under Section 92C(2) proviso, which is a mandatory statutory provision.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Delay in filing the appeal.
                            2. Upward adjustment of Rs. 6,59,25,424/- for 'Intra-group services'.
                            3. Upward adjustment of Rs. 73,93,241/- for 'Seed testing and trial charges'.
                            4. Application of (+)/(-) 3% benefit under Proviso to Section 92C(2) for 'Provision for Business Support Services'.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
                            The appeal was filed after a delay of 11 days. The appellant's representative argued that the delay was due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended the limitation period for filing appeals starting from 15.03.2020. The respondent's representative agreed with this submission. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing, ruling that there was no delay in fact.

                            2. Upward Adjustment of Rs. 6,59,25,424/- for 'Intra-group Services':
                            The assessee made payments totaling Rs. 6,59,25,424/- to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) for intra-group services. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) determined that the transactions were not at Arm's Length Price (ALP) due to the lack of documentary evidence proving the actual receipt of services. The TPO's decision was upheld by the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP), which noted that the assessee failed to demonstrate the receipt of services or the benefit derived from them. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and remanded the matter back to the AO/TPO for reconsideration, providing the assessee with an opportunity to submit all relevant documents.

                            3. Upward Adjustment of Rs. 73,93,241/- for 'Seed Testing and Trial Charges':
                            The assessee paid Rs. 73,93,241/- to its AEs for seed testing and trial charges. The TPO determined the ALP at Rs. Nil, citing the absence of documentary evidence proving the actual receipt of services. The DRP upheld the TPO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to demonstrate the receipt of services or the benefit derived from them. The Tribunal, acknowledging the short period allowed for the assessee to submit documents and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, admitted additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the AO/TPO for a fresh examination.

                            4. Application of (+)/(-) 3% Benefit under Proviso to Section 92C(2) for 'Provision for Business Support Services':
                            The assessee argued that the AO/TPO erred in not allowing the (+)/(-) 3% tolerance band benefit under the Proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act. The DRP had directed the AO to apply a mark-up of 7.75% on the transaction value of Rs. 10,217,344/- for Business Support Services and to allow a benefit of 5% mark-up if charged separately in the invoices. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to explicitly consider the statutory provision of the (+)/(-) 3% tolerance band, thereby allowing this ground.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matters related to 'Intra-group services' and 'Seed testing and trial charges' back to the AO/TPO for reconsideration with the admission of additional evidence. The Tribunal also directed the AO/TPO to apply the statutory (+)/(-) 3% tolerance band benefit under Proviso to Section 92C(2). The order was pronounced in the open court on 19.01.2024.
                            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