← 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

Indeed India Operations Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the assessment year 2021-2022 is allowed

ITA 943/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.943 & 1359/Hyd/2024 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Indeed India Operations The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-2(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad. Telangana Pan Aadci5931J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Mahima Goud, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mahima Goud, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C(3)

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

Calliduscloud (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1395/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)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

Indeed India Operations Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1359/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.943 & 1359/Hyd/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Saxon Global India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1334/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
Section 144C(5)Section 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

Parexel International (Irl) Limited, Ireland vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 447/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.447/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Parexel International Vs. Additional Director Of (Irl) Limited, Ireland Income Tax Pan:Aaicp4417B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Kanchun Kaushal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Parexel International (Irl) Limited, Ireland (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Adit (Int. Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (“Ld. Ao”) Dated 07.07.2023 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate Kanchun KaushalFor Respondent: : Smt. U Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 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

Interwrap Corp Private Limited (Successor of Owens Corning Industries (India) Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT., Circle -5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 496/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)

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

Dr. Reddys, Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 491/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 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

Dr. Reddys, Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 490/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 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

Ntt Data Business Solutios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 489/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

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

R.A.K Ceramics India Private Limited, Samalkot vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 465/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)

ITA No 465 of 2022 RAK Ceramics India Private Limited 2 R.A.K. Ceramics India Private Limited Assessment year: 2018-19

Concentrix Catalyst Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 963/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri D Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'DB-B‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद, न्यायिक

Netcracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 730/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C(3)

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

Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1862/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 145Section 92BSection 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

Epam Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -8 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 83/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

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

Epam Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 498/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

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

Repal Green Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 125/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 270ASection 32Section 32A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

DCIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi vs. Acme Tele Power Ltd. (Now Known As Acme Cleantech Solution Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in making reference to TPO for determining of ALP of International transaction. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3641/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in making reference to TPO for determining of ALP of International transaction. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4478/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in making reference to TPO for determining of ALP of International transaction. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Ecoenergy Insights Ltd ( Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

such a new issue/ground at this stage is contrary to established appellate procedures and disrupts the orderly conduct of proceedings. 2. Validity of Reference to TPO: o The contention raised by the assessee is factually incorrect. In the order of the TPO, it is clearly mentioned that the reference ... assessee. He further submits that as per section 144B of the Act, there is no provision that Technical Unit can make reference to TPO, as Technical Unit itself is authorised to perform functions of providing technical assistance on transfer pricing issues and itself is a Technical Unit. Thus, delegation