Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench, in the case of M/s Emami Limited, in ITA No.1958/Kol /2017, Assessment Year: 2013-14, (supra) and there is no change in facts and law and the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings of the coordinate Bench.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 92C of Income Tax Act, 1961—Transfer Pricing—Approach adopted by TPO to benchmark the same international transaction in two different ways in the hands of two different taxpayers for the same assessment year signifies arbitrariness in the action of the TPO.

Facts:Aggrieved by the order of AO/TPO, assessee went on appeal before Tribunal and raised the ground that are directed against the arm’s length price adjustment made by AO in respect of receipt of interest on loans and advance granted to AT&S India.

Held, that lending money is not one of the main businesses of the assessee (AT&S Austria) and AT&S India being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the assessee, the assessee is not exposed to significant credit risk in respect of the loan made to AT&S India. Therefore, the credit rating of AT&S India would broadly be the same as that of the assessee. Hence, the DRP was not justified in adding credit spread of 450 basis points to LIBOR, while determining the arm’s length interest rate in respect of loan and advance. DRP did not mention in his order comparability analysis prescribed under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Legislature has never shown an intention to treat the same international transaction in two different ways in the hands of two associated enterprises such that there would be arm’s length price adjustment at least in the hands of one of the associated enterprises. Hence, the approach adopted by the DRP/TPO is not acceptable. In the assessee's case, the DRP did not mention in his order the comparability analysis prescribed under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 10B. The DRP did not bring on record any comparable uncontrolled transaction under the CUP Method for substantiating that the interest rate of LIBOR plus 450 basis points conformed to the arm’s length standard under the CUP Method. Therefore, taking into account these facts and circumstances as narrated above we delete the upward adjustment of INR 3,13,68,273/- to the income of the assessee. - AT & S AUSTRIA TECHNOLOGIE & SYSTEMTECHNIK AKTIONGESELLSCHAFT V/s DY. CIT - [2020] 182 ITD 143 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

Professional services available Audit Management
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Youtube
HR Consulting services

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE

FOR ANY SUPPORT ON GST/INCOME TAX

Do You Want To Take FREE DEMO Of Our GST/Income Tax Library.