TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment for the ITES and software development segments, including the comparables and filters adopted, was sustainable. (ii) Whether the notional interest adjustment on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was sustainable. (iii) Whether the arm's length value of the imported fixed assets could be taken as nil and the related adjustment sustained.
Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment for the ITES and software development segments, including the comparables and filters adopted, was sustainable.
Analysis: The dispute for the year was identical to the assessee's earlier years, where the Tribunal had already directed adoption of the accepted margin for the ITES segment and had accepted the assessee's challenge to the fresh comparability exercise. The present year followed the same factual pattern, and the Tribunal treated the earlier findings as fully applicable. The resulting adjustment on the main transfer pricing segment could not therefore be sustained.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the notional interest adjustment on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was sustainable.
Analysis: The receivables issue was also covered by the Tribunal's earlier orders. The adjustment had been restricted in the prior year by applying the rate accepted in the MAP resolution to receivables outstanding beyond the stipulated credit period, and the same approach was held applicable here. The notional interest addition was therefore not maintainable in the manner made by the tax authorities.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the arm's length value of the imported fixed assets could be taken as nil and the related adjustment sustained.
Analysis: On the fixed assets issue, the Tribunal followed its earlier view that the imported assets could not be valued at nil when the customs authorities had assigned a value through a recognised valuation process. The assessee's evidence was accepted, and the nil valuation adopted for transfer pricing purposes was rejected.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal applied its earlier decisions to all disputed transfer pricing adjustments and deleted the additions, resulting in complete relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts and issues are identical to earlier years, the Tribunal may follow its prior binding approach on transfer pricing, receivables, and asset valuation, and a nil arm's length value cannot be adopted for imported assets where a credible customs valuation exists.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
