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 :

        2025 (8) TMI 204 - 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

        TPO's allocation of indirect expenses based on export revenue flawed under Transfer Pricing rules, assessee's method accepted The ITAT Delhi held that the TPO's allocation of indirect expenses based on export revenue proportion was flawed, as these expenses were also attributable ...
                          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.

                              TPO's allocation of indirect expenses based on export revenue flawed under Transfer Pricing rules, assessee's method accepted

                              The ITAT Delhi held that the TPO's allocation of indirect expenses based on export revenue proportion was flawed, as these expenses were also attributable to an abandoned project. The assessee's method of considering actual expenses for trading activity was accepted. Since the assessee had already disallowed the entire indirect expenses in income computation, no further adjustment was warranted. The tribunal directed the TPO to accept the assessee's operating margin at 6.24%, resulting in no transfer pricing adjustment for the trading activity. The assessee's grounds were allowed.




                              ISSUES:

                                Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on sale of traded goods based on arm's length price difference is justified.Whether the Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) margin calculated by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) at (-) 35.46% is appropriate as against the assessee's reported margin of 6.24%.Whether the TPO's method of considering employee benefit expenses and other expenses proportionate to export revenue to total revenue is correct.Whether the rejection of all comparables selected by the assessee and selection of 15 new comparables by the TPO without specific reasons is valid.Whether the computation of arm's length price adjustment of Rs. 1,11,76,537/- on sale of traded goods is sustainable.

                              RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

                                The transfer pricing adjustment on sale of traded goods is not justified as the assessee's operating margin of 6.24% should be accepted instead of the TPO's (-) 35.46% margin.The TPO's approach of proportionately allocating employee benefit and other expenses based on export revenue to total revenue is flawed because these expenses largely pertain to an abandoned project and not to trading activities.The rejection of all comparables selected by the assessee and the selection of 15 new comparables by the TPO without giving specific reasons is erroneous.The arm's length price adjustment of Rs. 1,11,76,537/- computed by the TPO is based on an incorrect operating margin and therefore cannot be sustained.Accordingly, no transfer pricing adjustment is required in respect of the trading activity, and the assessee's reported income should be accepted.

                              RATIONALE:

                                The court applied the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically sections 92CA(3), 143(3), 143(13), 144B, and 144C(5) relating to transfer pricing and assessment procedures.The assessee's Transfer Pricing Study Report adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) using Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI), selecting five comparables with a PLI of 2.32%, resulting in an assessee margin of 6.24%.The TPO rejected the assessee's comparables without specific reasons, selected 15 new comparables, and recalculated the operating margin at (-) 35.46% by allocating employee benefit and other expenses proportionate to export revenue, ignoring the fact that a significant portion of these expenses related to an abandoned manufacturing project voluntarily disallowed by the assessee.The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue of expense allocation further, recognizing the distinction between capital and revenue expenses but not disputing the genuineness of expenses related to the abandoned project.The court found that the TPO's allocation of expenses was incorrect as it failed to segregate expenses related to the abandoned project from trading activities, resulting in a distorted operating margin and flawed transfer pricing adjustment.The court emphasized that since the assessee had already disallowed the indirect expenses related to the abandoned project in its income computation, the TPO's approach led to double counting and was therefore unsustainable.No doctrinal shift or dissent was noted; the court adhered to established transfer pricing principles and statutory provisions, ensuring that only genuine expenses related to the international transaction are considered for arm's length price determination.

                              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