← 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

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 47/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

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 140/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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

Asstt.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 27/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

Asstt.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 26/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5379/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 5375/Del/2015, (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit Vs. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd. Central Cirle-19, Room B-44, Malcha Marg, Chanakya No. 104, Ara Centre, E-2, Puri, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacg0361K

Section 10ASection 153A

assessee that there was no diversion of income and that the assessee had fully accounted its income the A.O. made reference to TPO for determining the Arms Length Price of the Assessee’s transaction with iEnergizer Holding Ltd. The TPO made enquiry incompliance with the reference made

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5378/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 5375/Del/2015, (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit Vs. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd. Central Cirle-19, Room B-44, Malcha Marg, Chanakya No. 104, Ara Centre, E-2, Puri, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacg0361K

Section 10ASection 153A

assessee that there was no diversion of income and that the assessee had fully accounted its income the A.O. made reference to TPO for determining the Arms Length Price of the Assessee’s transaction with iEnergizer Holding Ltd. The TPO made enquiry incompliance with the reference made

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5377/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 5375/Del/2015, (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit Vs. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd. Central Cirle-19, Room B-44, Malcha Marg, Chanakya No. 104, Ara Centre, E-2, Puri, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacg0361K

Section 10ASection 153A

assessee that there was no diversion of income and that the assessee had fully accounted its income the A.O. made reference to TPO for determining the Arms Length Price of the Assessee’s transaction with iEnergizer Holding Ltd. The TPO made enquiry incompliance with the reference made

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5376/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 5375/Del/2015, (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit Vs. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd. Central Cirle-19, Room B-44, Malcha Marg, Chanakya No. 104, Ara Centre, E-2, Puri, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacg0361K

Section 10ASection 153A

assessee that there was no diversion of income and that the assessee had fully accounted its income the A.O. made reference to TPO for determining the Arms Length Price of the Assessee’s transaction with iEnergizer Holding Ltd. The TPO made enquiry incompliance with the reference made

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5375/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 5375/Del/2015, (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit Vs. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd. Central Cirle-19, Room B-44, Malcha Marg, Chanakya No. 104, Ara Centre, E-2, Puri, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacg0361K

Section 10ASection 153A

assessee that there was no diversion of income and that the assessee had fully accounted its income the A.O. made reference to TPO for determining the Arms Length Price of the Assessee’s transaction with iEnergizer Holding Ltd. The TPO made enquiry incompliance with the reference made

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

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5372/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 5375/Del/2015, (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit Vs. Granada Services Pvt. Ltd. Central Cirle-19, Room B-44, Malcha Marg, Chanakya No. 104, Ara Centre, E-2, Puri, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacg0361K

Section 10ASection 153A

assessee that there was no diversion of income and that the assessee had fully accounted its income the A.O. made reference to TPO for determining the Arms Length Price of the Assessee’s transaction with iEnergizer Holding Ltd. The TPO made enquiry incompliance with the reference made

Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1-Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the corporate additions made in the assessment order would not survive

ITA 641/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.641/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Limited Dcit (Formerly Known As Hospira Healthcare India Corporate Circle-5(2)-Ltu, बनाम/ Private Limited) Chennai. Vs. 237, Emerald Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabco-2190-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 14ASection 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 2(24)Section 31Section 35Section 92C

That the above grounds are specious and illogical can be appreciated by considering the following arguments: i) The Assessing Officer had made a reference to TPO u/s 92CA of the lncome -tax Act which is a matter of record and which is not disputed by the assessee. It was incumbent

Uttam Energy Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-12, Pune

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

Assessee has pleaded that since the sub clause (i) of Section 92BA was omitted, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make a reference to TPO for Specified Domestic Transaction on 19/09/2017 and the TPO had no jurisdiction to pass an order for the specified domestic transaction. The LD.AR demonstrated ... follow the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Texport Overseas P Ltd (supra). In this case the reference to TPO was made on 18/09/2017, i.e. after the section 92BA(i) was omitted, also the Transfer Pricing Order was passed on 30/10/2018 i.e. after the section

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

Domestic Transaction or International Transactions were opined to pass the Arms’ Length Price test as per the TP Study Report. 8.2 However, on reference to TPO for verification of ALP of Specified Domestic Transaction entered into by the eligible units, the TPO passed order dated 30.07.2021 under Section 92CA ... efforts were made by the AO to prima facie conclude existence of any arrangement per se as called upon by law before making reference to TPO for TP analysis. The existence of arrangement thus goes to the root of the matter of the controversy and unless the existence of arrangement

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250

argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities and stated that the assessee has revised a return on multiple occasions. There had been reference to TPO, and also in the revised return furnished on 30.03.2019 the assessee had claimed refund of only Rs.2,89,36,036/- and it was only

J P Morgan Chase Bank N.A Mumbai Branch, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Mumbai -3, Mumbai

ITA 1235/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं. 1235/मुं/2022 (नि.व. 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate withFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma,CIT-DR
Section 263

assessee is wrong appreciation of facts. He submitted that time barring date of the assessment order was 30/09/2022. The Assessing Officer made reference to TPO on 20/09/2021. The period of limitation was extended by virtue of Taxation and Other Laws(Regulation of Amendment of Certain provisions) Act, 2020 (in short

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

In the result, the disallowance of Rs

ITA 3392/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

SERCO India Pvt. Ltd. Mahalaxmi Automotives Private Limited from Serco Group in March 2015. 11. The Assessing Officer made a reference to TPO to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in respect of International Transactions and Specified Domestic Transactions undertaken by the assessee company with its AEs during

M/S Isoft Health Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicomputer Sciences Dcit, Circle 11(4) Corporation India Private No. 14/3, 5Th Floor, R.P. Limited Bhawan Nrupathunga (Formerly Isoft Health Road Vs. Management (India) Pvt. Bangalore Ltd.) Unit-13, Block-2, Sdf Building Mpez Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaco 2465N Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 153(1)Section 92C

which is contrary to the CBDT instruction no.3/2003 providing threshold limit of quantum of international transactions of Rs.5 crore for making the reference to TPO. 5.1. Another issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground is regarding validity of the final assessment order passed ... crores will be reviewed depending upon the workload of the TPOs. The work relating to selection of cases for scrutiny and reference to TPO on the above basis in respect of pending returns filed for the assessment year 2002-03 should be completed by June 30, 2003- (ii) Role

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

force, if projections are to be relied up on, all events that have occurred till that date should be considered. 13. Moreover, reference to TPO on this issue is un-warranted hence, bad in law. As transaction of purchase of equity shares is a capital transaction and the same

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

force, if projections are to be relied up on, all events that have occurred till that date should be considered. 13. Moreover, reference to TPO on this issue is un-warranted hence, bad in law. As transaction of purchase of equity shares is a capital transaction and the same

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi/Local Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is Asstt, CIT- CC-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1058/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Mahindra & Mahindra Income Tax Officer, National E- Limited Assessment Centre, Delhi Corporate Taxation, Local Jurisdictional Assessing P.K.Kurne Chowk, Vs. Worli, Officer Mumbai-400 018 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3025E Assessee By : Shri H.P. Mahajani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

admission of additional ground of appeal as under, The application of the additional ground shows that the following two grounds are raised:- “1. Reference to TPO under section 92CA was made beyond permissible period as prescribed under section 153(1) and hence assessment is barred by limitation On the facts