← 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

Sime Darby Engineering Sdn Bhd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-2, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 7616/DEL/2018[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 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., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Ci9Rcle-2, Dehradun

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

ITA 5898/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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

National Oilwell Varco Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

ITA 1557/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

National Oilwell Varco Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

ITA 1675/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

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

Camfil India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Range 53, Gurgaon

ITA 6011/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthi

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

ITA Nos. 6011/D/2024 CAMFIL INDIA (P) LTD. & 9752/D/2019 TOSHIBA (INDIA) P. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Lt.D, Gurgoan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5389/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 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

Athena Hisar Solar Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/DEL/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Athena Hisar Solar Power Pvt. Vs Dcit, Assessment Unit, Ltd., J5/132, Rajouri Garden, Civic Centre, E-2, Delhi-110027 Delhi Pan-Aaoca5969P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Dated 26.09.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By The A.O. Is Time Barred By Limitation & Is Bad In Law, As It Has Been Passed Beyond The Time Frame Prescribed Under Section 153(1) Read With Section 153(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short). The Ld. Assessee'S Representative Relying On The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon'Ble High Court Of Madras In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Athena Hisar Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 537 (Madras) & Also Plethora Of Orders Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Sought For Allowing The Ground No. 2 Of The Assessee.

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

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5199/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Circle-13(1) Business Center, Gurgaon C.R. Building, Delhi Road, South West Delhi- 110037. Pan-Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sumit Mangal, Adv. Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Dated 23.10.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Bench Has Asked The Assessee To File Specific Ground Of Appeal No.2 As Against General Ground Of Appeal No. 2 Taken. In Compliance, Assessee Vide Application Dt. 12.03.2025 Filed Under Rule 11 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal Under. The Additional Ground Of Appeal Taken Reads As Under: Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 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

Dora Medical Trading (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

ITA 4998/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

ITA No.4998/Del/2024 Dora Medical Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE

Manlift India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 16(3), New Delhi

ITA 4461/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

ITA No.4461/Del/2024 Manlift India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI ITA

Delta Electronics India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

ITA 4448/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

ITA No.4448/Del/2024 Delta Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Mufg Bank, Ltd., New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 3929/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

ITA NOS. 134/D/23, 3929/D/24, 844/D/21,1476/D/22 & 1477/D/2022 MUFG BANK LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 134/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

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

ITA NOS. 134/D/23, 3929/D/24, 844/D/21,1476/D/22 & 1477/D/2022 MUFG BANK LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW

Mufg Bank Ltd. (Earlier Known As the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, Ltd. ), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

ITA 1477/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthimufg Bank Ltd., आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 134/Del/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Pan No.Aabct3880D E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Mufg Bank Ltd., आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3929/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate (Virtual) Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Mufg Bank Ltd., बनाम 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Vs. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.844/Del/2021 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Pan No.Aabct3880D Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1476/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 1

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

ITA NOS. 134/D/23, 3929/D/24, 844/D/21,1476/D/22 & 1477/D/2022 MUFG BANK LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I” NEW

Mufg Bank Ltd. (Earlier Known As the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, Ltd. ), Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1476/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

ITA NOS. 134/D/23, 3929/D/24, 844/D/21, 1476/D/22 & 1477/D/2022 MUFG BANK LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1) (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 844/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 134/Del/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mufg Bank Ltd., 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3929/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mufg Bank Ltd., 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Mufg Bank Ltd., 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D बनाम Vs. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.844/Del/2021 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Circle 2(2)(1),International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1476/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 1

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

ITA NOS. 134/D/23, 3929/D/24, 844/D/21,1476/D/22 & 1477/D/2022 MUFG BANK LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW

Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

ITA 9752/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthi

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

ITA Nos. 6011/D/2024 CAMFIL INDIA (P) LTD. & 9752/D/2019 TOSHIBA (INDIA) P. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Aecom India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1021/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.2404/दिल्ली/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Respondent: S/Shri Vishal Kalra & Ankit Sahni, Advcoates with
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

M/S. Aecom India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 2404/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.2404/दिल्ली/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Respondent: S/Shri Vishal Kalra & Ankit Sahni, Advcoates with
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

Haskoningdhv Consulting Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, ITA No.1040/Del/2021 (Honda Cars India Ltd

ITA 6120/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6120/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Haskoningdhv Consulting Private Limited Acit, Office No.204, 2Nd Floor, Rs Tower, Plot No. B Vs. Circle-10(1), 358A, New Ashok Nagar No.1267, Room No.389 A, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vasundhara Enclave, East Delhi. Pan No.Aaacm8966G Delhi. 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