DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent use of CUP and RPM methods for benchmarking, which were accepted in subsequent years and in previous assessment years. The Tribunal also considered the procedural aspect of the TPO not issuing a show cause notice for service fee adjustments.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted major transfer pricing adjustments made by the AO. The assessee, a subsidiary of a US company, had international transactions with its AEs for imports and services. The TPO proposed significant adjustments, which the AO largely adopted.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting transfer pricing adjustments and whether the TPO followed due process in making adjustments for service fees.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT1,695 citing193 ITR 321 · 1992 · SC
- DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council193 citing245 ITR 492 · 2000 · HC
- Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT168 citing244 ITR 734 · 2000 · HC
- CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd.79 citing260 ITR 417 · 2006 · HC
- Moser Baer India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT7 citing316 ITR 1 · 2009 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘T’: NEW DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, New Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)' in short) in Appeal No. 51/2008-09/CIT(A)-XX vide order dated 20.01.2012 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', in short) arising out of the order of AO dated 31.12.2008 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is 100% subsidiary company of Mobil Petroleum Company Inc. USA and engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of various range of lubricants in India. The assessee imports different grades of base oil a
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Fluor Daniel India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New DelhiDelhi23 Apr 2025Remanded
Also relies on Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the TPO had not thoroughly examined the issue of receivables, failing to analyze patterns over time or consider the impact on working capital. The case was remitted to the TPO for a fresh examinati...
- DCIT, New Delhi vs M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New DelhiDelhi8 Oct 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal decided most of the grounds in favour of the assessee, citing precedents and High Court/Supreme Court orders. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.
- M/S. North Eastern Electric Power… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Guwahati12 Dec 2022Allowed
Also relies on Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view of treating LPS on a cash basis was permissible and not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed.
- ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, MumbaiMumbai30 Nov 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding trip expenses, reducing the disallowance. It also restored the transfer pricing adjustment for interest on loans to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. The Reven...
- Steria India Ltd., Noida vs Addl.CIT, Speciaql Range-8, New DelhiDelhi28 Sept 2020Partly Allowed
Also relies on Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses were not royalty under the DTAA, and thus, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not warranted. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant TDS credit upon verificat...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
