Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« Transfer Pricing »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 I T department keeps tolerance range for transfer pricing unchanged
 India retains transfer pricing tolerance range for 2019 20
 PCIT rightly directed the Bank of India s case to Transfer Pricing Officer for determining ALP ITAT
 Key Highlights Of The 2nd Edition Of KSA Transfer Pricing Guidelines
 ITAT deletes Penalty since Assessee applied Transfer Pricing Provisions with Good faith and Due Diligence
 Change in transfer pricing regulations to help MNCs
 National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited, New Delhi, Delhi
 Deals of the day-Mergers and acquisitions September 3, 2019
 Transfer pricing documentation due by year-end
 Transfer pricing amendments – a step towards certainty
 key international tax and transfer pricing developments

Indian Tribunal rejects transfer price adjustment in Microsoft case
January, 07th 2015

The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) rejected an approximate INR 290 million (about $4.5 million) transfer pricing adjustment relating to marketing services provided by the assessee, Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., to its US parent and Singapore and UK affiliates. The dispute centered on determining the appropriate comparables to include in determining an arm’s-length operating margin. The assessee computed an arm’s-length operating margin of 7.32% based on nine comparables. The transfer pricing officer computed an arm’s-length operating margin of 21.18% after including five additional comparables, which not only engaged in routine marketing services but also provided high-end marketing services leading to the creation of marketing intangibles, and making other adjustments.

The transfer pricing officer argued that these five companies had been used as comparables by the assessee in the past. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the five companies did not provide comparable marketing services and that the inclusion by the assessee in prior years was not determinative.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting