MARKS AND SPENCER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

ITA 1937/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 January 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)36 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the TPO's selected comparables were not proper. It directed the AO/TPO to re-benchmark the royalty payment transaction afresh, considering the bundled services, and to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard. If exact comparables for the CUP method are not found, TNMM should be used.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M&S India, paid royalty and business service charges to its Singapore AE. The assessee used TNMM for benchmarking, while the TPO rejected it and applied CUP, proposing an adjustment. The assessee argued that the assessment order was passed by the wrong authority and that the TPO's comparables were inappropriate.

What were the issues?

Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) correctly rejected the assessee's chosen method (TNMM) and applied the CUP method, and whether the comparables selected by the TPO were appropriate. Also, whether the assessment order was jurisdictionally valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 92CA(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘I’: NEW DELHI.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate, Shri Harmeet Singh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 09.10.2025

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the ACIT, Circle 1 (1), Gurgaon under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act.

2.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought before us relevant facts of the case, the assessee, M&S India was incorporated on 2 01.04.2005 and is a subsidiary of Marks and Spencer Investments Pte. Ltd (‘M&S Singapore’). The assessee is engaged in the wholesale business of pro

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →