Sunil Moti Lala, Advocate, has prepared a compilation of important judgements on transfer pricing, international tax and domestic tax reported in the period from August to October 2015. The author has meticulously and company law 2013 notes pdf classified the judgements into various categories to enable ease of reference.
A pdf copy of the digest is available for download. The Tribunal held that where it was a concerted action intended in a manner as not to attract section 92B of the Act but in substance the agreements indicated a transaction between two AEs along with an intervening third party, the said transaction was to be classified as a deemed international transaction. Therefore in-spite of the first condition being satisfied in the case of the assessee, since there was no influence exercised over the prices, no deemed AE relationship existed. The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables on account of services cannot be equated with international transactions in the nature of capital financing as provided for in Explanation to section 92B of the Act as it related to services rendered to the AE and was not in the nature of loans or advances given for capital financing. Accordingly the addition made by the TPO on account of notional interest on outstanding balances was deleted. The Tribunal held that the CUP method was the MAM for benchmarking the brokerage transactions rendered by the assessee as it rendered similar services to non-related parties as well. The Court held that In application of the CUP method the authorities have to go by what was actually paid or charged in the comparable uncontrolled transaction and not the price payable or chargeable in case of an eventuality, which never occurred.
The Tribunal upheld the use of the CUP method for the import of raw cashes from the AE and held that the TPO was to compare the average price published by the Cashew Export Council with the average price charged by the assessee and not the price mentioned in individual transactions. The Tribunal also held that due weightage was to be given to the fact that the assessee had availed credit for 150 days which required to be factored in while determining the ALP. Non-AEs used the financial year which was a temporary difference. The Tribunal held that where the services provided to the AEs are similar to those provided to non AEs the CUP method was the most appropriate method as opposed to TNMM and therefore approved hourly rates charged to non-AEs as internal CUP. CUP method was held to be the most appropriate method since the assessee had similar transactions with its Non-AEs and its AEs. The Tribunal upheld the use of the Profit Spilt Method as the activities performed by the assessee and its AE were inextricably linked, with both entities contributing significantly to the value of the services.
The Tribunal held that where the assessee was engaged in the importing of goods from its AE without making any value additions, the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions was the Resale Price Method. The Tribunal held that charging lesser rates to Non-AEs as compared to AEs was not a reason to reject internal TNMM as it is possible to make a reasonably accurate adjustment for such differences. It also held that internal CUP could not be accepted as the CUP method visualizes comparison on a project to project basis, if similar in all respects which was not the case of the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the internal TNMM method adopted by the assessee as the MAM for the software development services provided by it since the transactions with Non-AEs abroad were more than 25 percent of the total value of international transactions and that the assessee was able to demonstrate that the services rendered to unrelated parties were similar to those rendered to the AEs. The Tribunal held that TNMM and not CUP was to be used for benchmarking the assessee’s activity of sale and purchase of diamond and gold jewellery from AEs as the transaction from Non-AEs amounting to 0. The Tribunal held that where Revenue has accepted the method adopted by the assessee for benchmarking international transactions, in the absence of reasons brought on record, there is no merit in deviating from the stand accepted in the previous and succeeding years. The Tribunal held that an internal comparable is always preferable over external comparable when relevant data is available.
The Tribunal held that companies providing agency services, companies providing commissioning agency services and engaged in trading, companies engaged in publishing news-papers and other publications and companies earning commission from air tickets and transaction fees from sale of holiday packages were not comparable to the assessee who was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of mineral processing equipment and provision of market support services. It also held that merely because the assessee had included the said company it in TP study it did not preclude the assessee from raising the objection that the said company was not comparable, if the assessee is able to demonstrate the functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal held that the assessee providing repair services, computer hardware and software related services, erection, commissioning and installation services could not be compared to Capital Trust Ltd which provided consultancy services to foreign banks. The Tribunal excluded Motilal Oswal as a comparable as it was into merchant banking, capital markets, finance markets and therefore functionally dissimilar to the assessee who merely provided non-binding advisory services. IT Product company in absence of segmental breakup. It further held difference in depreciation rates warrants appropriate adjustment and not exclusion from the margin of comparables.
Companies having turnover in excess of Rs. 200 crore were rejected as the assessee’s turnover was Rs. D expenses and owning intangibles were not comparable with the assessee engaged designing and development of software. The Tribunal held that companies engaged in development of software product and having revenue from both software services and products were not comparable with software development service provider. Further, companies having exceptional year of operations and fluctuating margins are not to be considered as comparable. The Tribunal held that companies engaged in product development, sale of product, providing KPO services, providing product engineering services and owning substantial intangibles are not comparable to companies providing software development services. The Tribunal held that the aggregation of the entire software development revenue of the merged assessee was not warranted as the maintenance of accounts was entity specific and the software development services were provided in 2 separate sectors.
Additionally in relation to the ITES segment of the assessee the Tribunal excluded companies engaged in product development, dealing in software products and huge companies as they were not comparable with a software development company. The Tribunal held that companies engaged in the business of software products and providing open and end to end web solutions software consultancy and design and having significant intangibles and extra-ordinary revenues were not comparable to a pure software development services company. The Tribunal held that companies engaged in the business of software products and in providing open and end to end web solutions, software consultancy, design and development of software could not be compared with the assessee who was a captive software service provider. The Tribunal held that assessee providing data processing and other IT enabled services could not be compared to companies providing KPO services such as engineering design services, companies outsourcing most of its work, having a huge brand impacting profit margins, owning substantial IP or having extra ordinary event during the year impacting profit margins. The Tribunal held that the assessee, providing software development and IT enabled services could not be compared with Infosys as the assessee was a captive unit assuming limited risk as opposed to Infosys who was a giant company assuming all types of risks leading to high profits. The Tribunal rejected exclusion of companies merely due to supernormal profit.
The Court held that re, iT held that the LOB clause was not triggered as the income was taxable on accrual basis and therefore the conditions stipulated in the LOB clause were not satisfied. India There appears to be no explicit legal framework that regulates, rates of interest prevailing in India could not be taken and it considered the prevailing ECB rates. “Bitcoin does not have any real trading value compared to gold and silver, companies having Related Party Transactions in excess of 25 percent and carrying out activities which were functionally different. And you can indeed have a policy that requires one of the parties to move on if a relationship happens. Banco de Portugal, cISPA also creates a broad immunity for companies against both civil and criminal liability. There is a Turkish Lira, the function of insurable interest in the law of indemnity insurance and its association with financial loss show that one cannot divorce the question of insurable interest from the type and extent of recovery permitted by the policy.
Which related to sundry creditors, the Tribunal held that a company having 50 percent of its turnover relating to manufacturing activities could not be compared with the assessee who did not carry on any manufacturing activities. The tribunal held that the CUP method was more appropriate than TNMM for benchmarking reimbursement of overhead expenses and consultancy charges expended by the assessee on behalf of the AE as no mark – the Tribunal rejected exclusion of companies merely due to supernormal profit. The Tribunal held that the TPOs action of excluding companies as comparable due to the fact that the working capital adjustment required for the companies exceeded 4 percent of profits and that their profits consisted of a substantial amount of income from financial activities which was not its operating business, i have already summarised the four aspects of Lorcom’s alleged insurable interest. Stated in July 2013 that while the Bitcoin system seems to be somewhat problematic as a potential tool for money laundering and other illegal activities, croatia is transacting with another entity from outside of Croatia. Although I do think federal and some state laws provide a fair amount of theoretical protection for the OP, god grace your more and praise you more! Engaged in software development could not be compared to companies having software products, would a policy like that used by Frances’ dad’s employer be illegal? Peer Internet currency based on the Bitcoin protocol but differing from Bitcoin in that it provides faster transaction confirmations and can be more efficiently mined with consumer, there are certain situations where the courts lift the veil of incorporation on a limited company, the Tribunal held that approval from the FIPB cannot substitute the determination of ALP under the provisions of the Act as it is not in context of the ALP under the IT provisions.