Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT (TS-75-ITAT-2013 (Mum)-TP)

27 ITR (Trib) 276Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#20323 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10B Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(4)Section 144C(5)

Judgments citing Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. v. ACIT (TS-75-ITAT-2013 (Mum)-TP)

LINTAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5889/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Lintas India Private Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department Or A Wing, 16Th Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Parinee Crescenzo, Income Tax, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Circle 16(1), Bandra (East), 1) National Faceless Mumbai – 400 051 Assessment Centre (Nafac), Vs. Pan: Aaacl0124F Delhi 2)Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain, Ld. A.R. Shri Karnik Kansara, Ld. A.R Ms. Neha Rai, Ld. A.R. Ms. Sakshi Chimanani, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.05.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel-1) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2 M/S. Lintas India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…view of not accepting the foreign/AE as tested party has been taken in umpteen number of cases, viz Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Onward Technology Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 36CCH46 (Mumbai) and Aurion Pro Solutions Ltd. Vs. ACIT (TS-75-ITAT-2013 Mumbai - TP)(2013) 27 ITR (Trib) 276 (Mumbai). In this regard, similarly in the case of Baekart Industries (P) Ltd., the Hon'ble ITAT in AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12 has also held that the assessee should be the tested party and not the AE's. (iii) Analysis of the Stand of the assessee The stand of the assessee is that the need and benefit is not required to be established. The asse…

M/S. ATMECS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 187/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, M J Towers, H-No.8-2-698, Ward -1(1)(1), Road No.12, Bengaluru. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 034. Pan : Aamca 0792 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.3.2021 By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Associated Enterprises

For Appellant: Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Arunkumar, CIT(TP-2)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

…logy Ltd. Vs. DCIT IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2021 Page 10 of 47 (2013) 36 CCH 46 (Mumbai) holding that Foreign/ Associated Enterprise cannot be a tested party. Similar view has been taken in Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. Vs. ACIT (TS-75-I TA T- 2013 (Mum)-TP) - (2013) 27 ITR (Trib) 276 (Mumbai). In the light of the foregoing discussion, the TPO rejected the foreign/Associated Enterprises as a tested parties. 6. The TPO also referred to Rule 10B 2(d) which specifies that the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction shall be judged with reference to condition prevailing in market in whi…

M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1260/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 143(3)

…annot be a tested party. Even the Miscellaneous Application filed against this order came to be dismissed in M.A. No.203/Mum/13 vide order dated 17-01-2005. Similar view has been taken in Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. Vs. ACIT (TS-75-ITAT-2013 (Mum)-TP) - (2013) 27 ITR (Trib) 276 (Mumbai). In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the view canvassed by the authorities below in rejecting foreign/Associated Enterprise as a tested party. 25. Reverting to the `Cost plus’ method applied by the assessee in its original transfer pricing documentation,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1308/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 143(3)