“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

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

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

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

Income Tax Officer, Jalna vs. Vikram Tea Processor Private Limited, Jalna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 685/PUN/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

effect of such “omission” of clause (i) of section 92BA means that this provision never existed in the statute book, hence reference to TPO was bad in law. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jalna, Jalna vs. Vikram Tea Processor Private Limited, Jalna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2285/PUN/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT

Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

Shahi Exports Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 8, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 710/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 30Section 92C

ITA No.710/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI

Kbs Creation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax -Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6477/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80ISection 92C

Panel (DRP). 4. Before the DRP the assessee file detailed written submission. The assessee before DRP submitted that AO has erred in making reference to TPO by invoking provisions of section 80IA(10) without determining and establishing 4 KBS Creations(AY: 2021-22) existence of an arrangement between the concerned ... another unit located outside SEZ. On reporting SDT on account of sale of Jewellery to its AE, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAE) made reference to TPO on reporting such transaction in Form 3CEB explaining the fact that profit earned from sales to such parties are not more than ordinary profits

DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai vs. Era Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 3096/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Bleshri Girish Agrawal, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 92C

recorded that assessment in this case has become time barred on 31.12.2017. Still on the basis of report in Form-3CEB, he made reference to TPO for determination of ALP of alleged international transaction. We find that Id CIT(Appeals) deleted both the additions by taking view that on identical

Ucweb Mobile Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit, Inocome Tax Department, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3945/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)(d)Section 43(3)

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 ... extended period of limitation u/s 153(4) of the Act of Twelve months (12 months) would not be available in absence of valid reference to TPO. He thus prayed that the order being barred by limitation and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 7. Per contra, the ld. CIT DR submits

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai, Nungambakkam vs. Orient Green Power Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon

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

which was revised subsequently on 16.09.2015 admitting loss of Rs.68,12,68,141/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO made reference to TPO for determining arm’s length price of specified domestic transaction. The TPO, Chennai passed an order u/s.92CA(3) on 30.10.2017 disallowing Rs.4 ... TPO dated 30.10.2017. The management services fees paid falls under the category of Specified Domestic Transaction and is governed by section 92BA. The reference to TPO in respect of SDTs was made on 28.09.2016 and the order of the TPO was passed on 30.10.2017. It is seen from the perusal

Sri Maharaja Refineries, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-I, Erode

ITA 1956/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

For Respondent: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

accordance with the provisions of sec.40A(2)(b) of the Act, since these transactions would not fall under section 92BA(i) and reference to TPO is not valid. 5. The co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee's cases vide order dated 15.02.2023 in ITA No. 2608/Chny/2017 ... dated 29/05/2008 and ITA Nos: 35/2016, 7171/2010, 7141/2011, 1576/2013 and 3949/2014 dated 24/10/2018. It is surprising to note that when the reference to TPO has been held to be not valid by the ITAT, how your office notice, in Page No:2, show-causes about the disallowance based on such

Sri Maharaja Refineries, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

ITA 1955/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

M/S Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 6099/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

limitation period as laid down by Section 153 is applicable. It further held that 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

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 4630/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Section 254(1)

DCIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kellogg India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 138/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal. (Physical Hearing)

Section 254(1)

Ground Nos.4 & 5 relates to transfer pricing adjustment on account of IT support services. We find that during the assessment, the AO made reference to TPO for computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP) with regard to IT support services. The TPO in Para 28 of his order recorded that ... also find that a similar IT support service rendered by assessee's company in AY 2020-21 was reported by matter was referred to TPO. However, no adjustments on IT support services were made/ suggested. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual discussion, we do not find any merit

Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

assessment under section 144 ( on the alleged failure to furnish the return). Further, ld. AR of the assessee company submitted that even reference to TPO without issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is invalid and subsequent order is bad-in Law. IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. R K M Powergen Private Limited, T Nagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 800/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Ravichandran, CA

Section 56(1)

ara atcha frac, Sl warerfis, sas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI At carat fe, soeret was

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Mohali

In the result, the transfer pricing adjustment so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) amounting to Rs 89,22,420/- is hereby set-aside and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 165/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Gupta, C.A and Shri Akshun Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

that reference has been made based on the details in Form 3CEB. Therefore, it is apparent that at the time of sending the reference to TPO, the aggregate value of specified domestic transaction(s) has been extracted from the Form 3CEB and its annexures filed by the appellant itself ... less than Rs.5 crore hence these transactions are not attracted by provisions of Section 92BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, reference to TPO is void ab initio. Without prejudice to this, it was also brought to the knowledge of ld CIT(A) that Finance Act, 2017 has omitted

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

further plea of the assessee that the additional evidence goes to prove conspicuous absence of any arrangement and the whole basis of reference to TPO and consequent addition by way of TP adjustment is vitiated and unsustainable in law. It is thus the plea of the assessee that to render

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, (a) all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed, (b) Cross Objection 1 (1

ITA 3372/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153

There is no dispute as to facts. The dates/events relevant for adjudication of the issue are as under: SNo. Date Event 1 29/12/2016 Reference to TPO under Section 92CA of the Act 2 31/12/2016 Time limit for passing order as per Section 153(1) of the Act 3 23/02/2017 Writ ... Petition filed by the Assessee seeking quashing of reference to TPO 4 26/06/2017 Interim stay granted by the Hon’ble C.O. No. 26 & 27/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Bombay High Court directing TPO not to pass final order 5 31/12/2017 Extended time limit for passing assessment order available

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1260/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumen Adak, CA

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

himself the approval from CIT for more than six months. In proceedings under the Act, time is the essence. Thereafter, on 20/09/2021 made reference to TPO, by that time the period to pass the order by the TPO u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act had already elapsed. As is evident ... term of section 153(4)of the Act for completion of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. Admittedly, the reference to TPO was made u/s.92CA(1) of the Act on 13.09.2021 and who passed the order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act on 28.01.2022. Since the reference u/s.92CA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur vs. M/S. Radha Radhav Developer, Nagpur

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 49/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145

dated 29.09.2011. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) not appreciating that reference to TPO was for specific purpose and is irrelevant for determination of valuation of property by DVO. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur vs. M/S. Radha Madhav Developer, Nagpur

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 48/NAG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 142ASection 145