Condition laid under sec 92C(3) need to be satisfied in determining the arms length price in international transaction

Last updated: 21 April 2012

Court :
Income Tax Appeallate Tribunal

Brief :
That the Assessing Officer (‘AO”) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in assessing the income of the Appellant under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at Rs. 17,52,18,050 against returned income of Rs 3,80,76,259 based on the directions received from Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) upholding the adjustment to the transfer price proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO”). That the Ld AO/TPO erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in proposing and the Hon’ble DRP further erred in upholding an addition of Rs 13,71,41,793 in respect of the international transactions relating to investment advisory support services alleging the same to be not at arm’s length in terms of the provisions of Sections 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act read with Rule 1OD of the Income-tax Rules,1962 (“the Rules”).

Citation :
Carlyle India Advisors Private Limited, 1st Floor, Quadrant “A” The IL & FS Centre,Plot C-22, “G” Block,Bandra- Kurla Complex,Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 PAN: AABCC 4522F (Appellant)Vs.The ACIT 10(1),Mumbai.(Respondent)