UTSTARCOM INDIA TELECOM PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the TPO's revised order resulted in no transfer pricing adjustment. Therefore, the assessee had no further grievance, and the appeals were rendered infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against transfer pricing adjustments made by the TPO and confirmed by the CIT(A). Subsequently, the TPO gave effect to the CIT(A)'s order, reducing the transfer pricing adjustment to Nil.
What were the issues?
Whether the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO was sustainable after considering the CIT(A)'s directions and subsequent revision by the TPO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “I-2”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI O.P. KANT
In view of the facts of the case and relevant legal provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the taxpayer-appellant believes that the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 44, New Delhi ('learned CIT')dated October 15, 2015, is not sustainable in the eyes of law since:
1. 1. Learned CIT(A) erred in misconstruing the functional and risk profile of the Appellant.
2. Learned CIT(A) erred in terms of approving TPO's approach of summarily rejecting the Transfer Pricing analysis carried out by the Appellant, selecting erroneous filters and functionally dissimilar companies while applying Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM').
3. Learned CIT(A) erred in not granting appropriate adjustments as warranted under Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may be thus granted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Grounds of appeal for AY: 2010-11 In view of the facts of the case and relevant legal provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the taxpayer-appellant believes that the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 44, New Delhi ('learned CIT')dated October 15, 2015, is not sustainable in the eyes of law since:
1. Learned CIT(A) erred in misconstruing the functional and risk profile of the Appellant.
2. Learned CIT(A) erred in terms of approving TPO's approach of summarily rejecting the Transfer Pricing analysis carried out by the Appellant, selecting erroneous filters and functionally dissimilar companies while applying Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM').
3. Learned CIT(A) erred in not granting appropriate adjustments as warranted under Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules').
The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may be thus granted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.
2. At the outset, before us the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that in the instant appeals, the assessee is aggrieved with the transfer pricing adjustment. He submitted that though the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and simultaneously, requested the Assessing Officer to give appeal effect of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that now by way of letter dated 07/02/2019, the learned transfer pricing officer (TPO) has given effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and as a result of which, the transfer pricing adjustment has been reduced to Nil. The learned DR also on perusal of the latter dated 7/02/2019 of the learned TPO, could not controvert the fact that the resultant transfer pricing adjustment after the effect of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is NIL. We have been also informed that no appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
3. We have perused the order of learned TPO dated 7/02/2019 giving effect to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) of excluding certain comparables and allowing the risk adjustment. The relevant part of the order giving effect of the learned TPO in assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 is reproduced as under:
4 & 1017/Del/2016 In AY: 2009-10 Particulars Proposed TP Adjustment Operating Cost(A) 8,05,41,591/- OP/TC 17.29% Margin 1,39,25,641/- Arm’s Length Price 9,44,67,232/- Price Charged by the 9,26,22,829/- assessee Difference 18,44,403/- (+), (-) 5% difference 46,31,141/- Adjustment required Nil
In AY: 2010-11 Particulars Proposed TP Adjustment Operating Cost(A) 6,46,59,702/- OP/TC 14.35% Arm’s Length Margin(B) 7.39,38,369/- Profit of the assessee as per 7,43,58,657/- segmental(C) Difference to be adjusted(B-C) (-)420288
The assessee has requested before us that the learned Assessing Officer might be directed to incorporate the order of the learned TPO dated 7/02/2019 and pass the resultant demand of taxes accordingly. Since the TPO has already intimated the Assessing Officer the result of effect giving order of the Ld. CIT(A), we direct the Assessing Officer to take necessary action to give effect of the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We find that as a result of the order of the TPO giving effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the transfer pricing adjustment has been reduced to nil, in such circumstances, the assessee is not having any grievance against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, the appeals filed by the assessee have been rendered infructuous.
More judgments on Section 92CA
- Bellsonica Auto Component India Private… vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 1041/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Smartstream Technologies India Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2220/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Airmeet Networks Private Limited, Bengaluru vs Assessing Officer, BengaluruITA 1487/BANG/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026