M/S. RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains/losses should be treated as operating income/loss for both the tested party and comparables, as they were related to export sales. Regarding working capital adjustment, the Tribunal found that the interest rate should be determined based on the US currency, not the Indian Prime Lending Rate, and remitted the matter to the TPO for fresh determination.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a subsidiary of a US company, provided IT-enabled services to its parent. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made an adjustment to the arm's length price (ALP) of these services, which was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee appealed the order.
What were the issues?
Whether foreign exchange fluctuation gains/losses are to be treated as operating income/loss for ALP determination and whether the correct currency should be used for working capital adjustment interest rate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)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.
- CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.968 citing312 ITR 254 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.273 citing276 CTR 445 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Priyanka Gems18 citing367 ITR 575 · 2014 · HC · Read judgment
- Cordys R & D (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT3 citing43 Taxmann.com 64 · 2014 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : & SHRI A.T. VARKEY:
set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of TPO for fresh determination on account of TP adjustment towards interest not realized from its AE on the debts arising during the course of business. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 04/11/2015..
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 Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026