“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

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

Pricing Officer under section 92CA (1) of the Act is made by 31 March 2013. It was the plea of the Assessee that reference to TPO for AY 2010-11 was made in April 2013 and the same is evident from the following: Notice No. TP-556/TPO-VI/12-13 dated

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Associate Enterprises (AEs) and the aggregate value of such transactions exceeded Rs.15 crore. He therefore, after taking approval of the component authorities, made reference to TPO for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of international transactions. TPO vide order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 31.10.2017 suggested

York Tech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. and MsFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT-DR and Shri M. Baranwal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

inventory by the assessee from its holding company. In the I.T.A. No.635/DEL/2021 2 grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the validity of reference to TPO for Domestic Transfer Pricing on the ground that, clause (i) of Section 92BA has been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, and therefore

Smr Automotive Systems India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 8, New Delhi

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

ITA 6614/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6614/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम M/S Smr Automotive Systems Addl. Cit India Ltd., Vs. Special Range-8, F-7, Block-B-I, Mohan Delhi. Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234ASection 271(1)Section 40a(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

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