← All Phrases

“reference to TPO”

Assessment ProceduresSection 92CASection 92CA424 judgments

The decision most relied on for reference to TPO is PCIT v. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd. (114 Taxmann.com 568), cited in 69 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reference to TPO

PCIT v. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd.
114 Taxmann.com 568 · 2020 · High Court
69
citing judgments

A reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is invalid and bad in law, which renders consequential Transfer Pricing adjustments by the Assessing Officer liable for deletion.

Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT & Anr.
288 ITR 52 · 2007 · High Court
39
citing judgments

A prima facie opinion by the Assessing Officer is sufficient to make a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Assessing Officer is not required to form a considered opinion after examining all materials before making a reference.

Delhi in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. v. ACIT
386 ITR 665 · 2016 · High Court
13
citing judgments

CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016, clarifying the procedure for making references to the TPO, is retrospective and applies to pending cases, even where a reference was made before the instruction's issue. Such an instruction clarifies the existing legal position and is not a procedural change that should only apply prospectively.

Judgments citing reference to TPO

Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., Gurgain vs. ACIT Circle-9(2), New Delhi

In the result, all ITA Nos

ITA 422/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5982/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Mmtc-Pamp India Private Limited, Dcit, 221, Ground Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Vs. Circle-16(1),C.R. Building, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Indraprastha Marg, Pan No.Aafcm3576K I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144C(13)

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1503/DEL/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017
Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

ITA No.1939/D/2022, 5939/D/2024, 525/D/2022, 5602/D/2024 + SA 650/Del/2025 & 1503/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW DELHI BEFORE

Inductis (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 9713/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Yogesh K Umar, U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 158A

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

ACIT Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Veetee Fine Foods Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 8416/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

VEETEE FINE FOODS LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIVIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Veetee Fine Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

ITA 7371/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

VEETEE FINE FOODS LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "I”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIVIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Zte Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

ITA 3897/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2009-10
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

ITA Nos. 6031/D/2024, 3897/D/2019, 3922/D/2024, 3809/D/2024 & 549/D/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIVIKAS

Baxter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 7833/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalbaxter India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit 2Nd Floor, Tower C, Building Circle 4 (1) No. 8, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf C. R. Building, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aaacb3906F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

Veetee Fine Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2572/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

VEETEE FINE FOODS LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIVIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Eberspaecher Suetrak Bus Climate Control Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Bengalore vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2071/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.725/धिल्ली/2022(नि.व. 2017-18) Modi-Mundipharma Beauty Products P. Ltd., 1400 Modi Tower, 98 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacm-5901-B बिाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assisant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Delhi आअसं.672/धिल्ली/2021(नि.व. 2016-17) Le Passage Tours & Travels India P. Ltd., A-296, Basement, Conference Cabin, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacl-8370-K बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 13(1), Cr Building, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2071/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2012-13) Eberspaecher Suetrak Bus Climate Control Systems India P. Ltd., No.2/1, Soukya Road, Thirumalashettyhally, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560067 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aacce-3922-E बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 8(1), Cr Building New Delhi

For Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

Consulting Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1992/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं. 1767/दिल्ली/2016 (नि.व. 2011-12)

For Respondent: Ms. Ananya Kapoor
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vee Tee Fine Foods Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 959/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

VEETEE FINE FOODS LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIVIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Oracle India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 938/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaloracle India Private Limited Vs Addl. Cit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon Range-13 Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Oracle India Private Limited Vs Dcit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Circle-19(1) Salconrasvilas, D-1, District New Delhi Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs Oracle India Private Limited Circle-19(1) F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon New Delhi Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Naveen Dhamija, Ca, Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Ca& Sh. Rinku Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 154

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

Veetee Fine Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee pertaining to assessment

ITA 853/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.853/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Veetee Fine Foods Ltd. Dcit, 551, 5Th Floor, Tower-B, Vs. Circle-26(1), Aggarwal Cyber Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacp0658C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.959/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Veetee Fine Foods Ltd. 551, 5Th Floor, Tower-B, Circle-26(1), Vs. New Delhi. Aggarwal Cyber Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacp0658C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2572/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Veetee Fine Foods Ltd. Addl. Cit 551, 5Th Floor, Tower-B, Vs. Special Range-9, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacp0658C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7371/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Veetee Fine Foods Ltd. Addl. Cit 551, 5Th Floor, Tower-B, Vs. Special Range-9, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacp0658C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

Consulting Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1767/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं. 1767/धिल्ली/2016 (नि.व. 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 7015/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaloracle India Private Limited Vs Addl. Cit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon Range-13 Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Oracle India Private Limited Vs Dcit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Circle-19(1) Salconrasvilas, D-1, District New Delhi Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs Oracle India Private Limited Circle-19(1) F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon New Delhi Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Naveen Dhamija, Ca, Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Ca& Sh. Rinku Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 154

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

M/S. Oracle India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6907/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaloracle India Private Limited Vs Addl. Cit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon Range-13 Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Oracle India Private Limited Vs Dcit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Circle-19(1) Salconrasvilas, D-1, District New Delhi Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs Oracle India Private Limited Circle-19(1) F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon New Delhi Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Naveen Dhamija, Ca, Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Ca& Sh. Rinku Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 154

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

Sime Darby Engineering Sdn Bhd, Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 9/DDN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

National Oil Well Varco Pte. Ltd (Formerly Known As Varco International Pte. Ltd), Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax Circle-1( International Taxation ), Dehradun

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5/DDN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

Sime Darby Engineering Sdnbhd, Malaysia vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation ) Circle-1, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/DDN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within

National Oilwell Varco Pte. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Varco International Pte Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-2, Dehradun

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 419/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

passed within the extended period, as otherwise the extension becomes meaningless. (e) The outer time limit of 33 months in case of reference to TPO under Section 153, would not refer to draft order, but only to final order and hence, the entire proceedings would have to be concluded within