“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

M/S Kepco Plant Service & Engineering Co Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(It), Mumbai

ITA 1030/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripurari

Section 143(3)Section 263

No.1056/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) directly by the Indian Project Owners to the Head Office. However, we find that the Assessing Officer made reference to TPO only in respect of domestic payments made by the Indian Project Owners to the Project Offices. The TPO carried out inquiry/investigation

Hubergroup India Private Limited, Vapi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.808/E, Phase-Ii, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pan No. Aaach 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

took a possible view and no reference was made. 8. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that reference of TPO is made with the approval of Ld. PCIT. The Ld. PCIT agreed with the proposal of Assessing Officer to make the reference with regard to TPO only with ... power to invoke his revisional power under section 263 to the extent the period of limitation and directing the Assessing Officer to make reference to TPO under the provision of section 92CA of the Act. As per the scheme of the Act, the reference to TPO is to be made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Worship Infraprojects Pvt Ltd(Previously Known As Om Metals Spml Infraprojects Pvt Ltd), Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &

Section 92C

order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. This case relates to TP Adjustment - AO made a reference to TPO u's 92CA to determine arms length price as the assessee had entered into specified domestic transaction and on the ground it was covered ... Circle-5 (1) (1), Bengaluru 2022 (6) TMI 179-ITAT Bangalore (Case law Paper Book page 21-27) TP Adjustment - AO made a reference to TPO u/s 92CA to determine arms length price as the assessee had entered into specified domestic transaction Reference to the TPO in respect of specified

Worship Infraprojects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Ceircle-2, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &

Section 92C

Veritas (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1896/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1896/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) M/S. Veritas (India) Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) 701, Embassy Centre, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Floor, Air India Building 400021. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1654J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gaurav Kabra Revenue By: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2019 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A, R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. First Of All, We Will Deal With The Ground No. 2 & 3, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao To Have Made An Addition On Account Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment Of Rs.1,93,43,532/- (On Account Of Share Application Money) & Rs.1,32,99,750/- (On Account Of Guarantee Commission) & Are Noted To Be Emanating From The Transfer Pricing Order (Tpo) Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 92Ca(3) Of The Act. According To The Ld. Ar, The Tpo Order Is Bad In Law Because The Assessee Has Filed The Original Return Of Income On 29.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

Rs.9,04,48,950/- assessee’s original Return of Income 2 Scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) issued 3 16.03.2015 AO’s reference to TPO 4 10.09.2015 Search 5 29.01.2016 Rs.3,26,43,282/- TPO order u/s 92CA(3) pursuant to reference to AO on 16.03.2015 6 09.11.2016 Notice u/s 153A ... which was picked up for scrutiny and AO in the original assessment proceeding issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and made reference to TPO vide order dated 16.03.2015. And while the TPO order was pending before AO, search u/s 132 of the Act took place

Shri Durga Loha Bhandar Private Limited, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr, CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chauhan, C. A

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92C

provided in sub section (i) of section 92CA of the Act. 4. In so far as reference to TPO is concerned, it was contended that each and every case is not to be referred to TPO and it is the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to refer the matter ... vide reply dated 21.08.2017 in the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee contended that the issue regarding completion of impugned assessment without any reference to TPO for determining the Arm’s Length Price is not in contravention of Board’s Circular No. 3/2016 dated 10.03.2016. It is the case

Tranztar Commercial Vehicle Applications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6624/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

assessee raised various grounds contesting the transfer pricing adjustments on merits. 5. During the course of hearing, the Bench noticed that the reference to TPO is made by the Assessing Officer with respect to the specified domestics 3 ITA 6624/Mum/2019 Tranztar Commercial Vehicle Applications Ltd transactions (SDT) and, therefore, raised

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

during the year under consideration. As the value of international transactions entered into by the assessee was more than Rs.15 crore, AO made reference to TPO for determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’). TPO vide order

DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Meneta Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1058/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR

Section 92C

enterprise or there are transactions with more than one associated enterprises the aggregate value of which exceeds Rs.5 crores the transaction should be referred to TPO. Before making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer has to seek approval of the Commissioner/Director as contemplated under the Act. Under the provisions ... Rs.5 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

M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7278/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Mr.KrishnaKumarMishra.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

hence period of limiting as per 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 ... Madras ) held as under: I .Section 92CA, read with section 153, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Transfer pricing- Reference to TPO (sub-section (3A)) - Assessment year 2016-17 In relevant assessment year, petitioner-company entered into international transaction and filed its income tax return on 30-11-2016 Assessing

Rahee Jhajharia E to E (Jv), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-32, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 135/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Rahee Jhajharia E To E (Jv),..................Appellant “Kemwell Manor”, 5Th Floor, 10/D/2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aabar5042H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri K.K. Khemka, Advocate & Shri Anuj Musaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

Since the transactions under clause (i) exceeded the prescribed limit, the AO considered it to be specified domestic transaction and made a reference to TPO for computation of ALP. Accordingly, TPO ·has computed the ALP which was objected to by the assesses before the DRP and DRP disposed ... section 40A exceeds the prescribed limit, it would be a specified domestic transaction for which AO is required to make a reference to TPO under section 92CA of the Act for determination of the ALP. In the instant case, since the transaction exceeds the prescribed limit it becomes the specified

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

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

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 40A(2)

liable to be quashed. GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING — LEGAL ISSUES 2. The learned AO has erred in making a reference to TPO for determining arm's length price without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so and without appreciating that being jurisdictional officer

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

prejudicial to the assessee are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 1.2 The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making a reference to TPO for determining arm's length price without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so. The Honorable DRP has erred

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

Page 2 IT(TP)A No. 404/Bang/2017 2. Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing – Legal issues :- The learned AO erred in (i) making a reference to TPO for determining arm's length price without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so; (ii) making transfer pricing adjustments

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

units are eligible for deduction under section 10AA. Grounds on transfer pricing adjustment 6. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making a reference to TPO for determining arm's length price without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient

Medreich Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

quashed in its entirety. Transfer Pricing Grounds 2. Grounds relating to transfer pricing adjustments 2.1 The learned AO has erred in making a reference to TPO for determining arm's length price without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so. The Honorable DRP has erred

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

adjustment to Rs. 4,94,73,850 after giving effect to directions of DRP. 4. The learned AO has erred in making a reference to TPO for determining arm's length price without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so. 5. The lower income

Pgs Premiere Conferencing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 622/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Length Price 'was accepted by the learned TPO during the previous years on similar transactions and thereby erred in concluding that non-reference to TPO is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 5. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the PCIT has failed to appreciate ... Revenue. 27. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT, 345 ITR 193 (Delhi)that non-reference to TPO renders the order ‘erroneous’ and prejudicial to Revenue.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncements, cited supra

Sri. Krishna Diamonds, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 232/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goutham, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 234BSection 92B

Bangalore (hereinafter referred as "AO" for brevity), learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing Officer) - 1(1)(2), Bangalore (hereinafter referred as "TPO" for brevity) and the Honourable DRP-1, Bengaluru ("AO", "TPO" and DRP collectively referred as "lower authorities" for brevity) are bad in law and liable ... section 40A exceeds the prescribed limit, it would be a specified domestic transaction for which AO is required to make a reference to TPO under section 92CA of the Act for determination of the ALP. In the instant case, since the transaction exceeds the prescribed limit it becomes the specified