← 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

Dentsply India Private Limited, Delhi vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4261/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahaydentsply India Private Limited V National Faceless Khasra No. 6/20 & 66/11/2, Gali S Assessment Centre, No. 2 Main Rohtak Road Mundka Lok Nayak Bhawan, Industrial Area, New Delhi Khan Market, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd3171E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pranay Gandhi, Adv (Virtual) Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)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

Lonza India Private Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4155/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahaylonza India Pirvate Limited Vs Dcit Novus Tower, Ground Floor, Plot No. Circle 1(1), Hsiidc 18, Sector 18, Palam Road, Building, Vanijyanikunj, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122015 Udyogvihar, Phase-V, Pan: Aaacc8679A Gurgaon, Haryana

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 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

Performance Specialty Products (India) Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana vs. Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department, Gurgaon

ITA 3941/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

ITA Nos. 3941/D/2024 & 5828/D/2024 PERFORMANCE SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW

Luxottica India Eyewear Private Limited, Haryana vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3908/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Ms. Sumisha MurgaiFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)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

G-Mobile Devices Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3883/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayg-Mobile Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Unit No. B-301, Third Floor, Tower- Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam B, Plot No. 7, Advant Iet Park, Buddha Nagar, Nodia, Sector 142, Noida, 201301 201301, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aagcg5071N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 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

Fujitsu Consulting India Private Limited, Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3878/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

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

Giesecke & Devrient Ms India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD), Delhi

ITA 3860/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.835/दिल्ली/2022 (नि.व. 2017-18)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Elentec India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

ITA 3841/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.1825/दिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2018-19)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Crm Services India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 845/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.1517 & 1693/दिल्ली/2022 (नि.व. 2008-09 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Mansha BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Crm Services India Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 844/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hon'Ble Apex Court. The Division Bench Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India In The Case Of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. Has Examined The Issue But Due To Divergent Opinions Expressed By The Hon'Ble Judges, The Issue Is 3

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

2 ITA Nos. 1517 & 1693/Del/2022(A.Ys 2008-09 & 2018-19) ITA Nos. 844 & 845/Del/2023(A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13) SA

Lt Foods Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1825/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.1825/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2018-19) आअसं.5708/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22) Lt Foods Ltd., Unit No. 134, First Floor, Rectangle-1, Saket District Centre, New Delhi 110017 Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacl-0259-K बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi आअसं.5381/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22) At & T Global Network Services India P. Ltd., Mohan Dev House, 13 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aafca-8810-L बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 1(1), Cr Building, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.3841/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2020-21) Elentec India P. Ltd., B-15/31, Lgf, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcr-2107-F बिाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Nfac ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Delhi

For Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)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

Mih Internet Sea Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1683/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahaymih Internet Sea Pte Ltd. Vs The Assessing Officer 1 Scotts Roas,# 21-07, Shaw Centre, Regional E-Assessment Singapore, Unit, National E- Pan:Aakcm7136N Assessment Centre, (Nwr/C/53/1, Jurisdiction Circle 1(1), Gurgaon Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv (Virtual, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By Sh. Shlock Chandra, Special Counsel & Sh. Udit Dad, Adv Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

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

Giesecke & Devrient Ms India Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi

ITA 835/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.835/दिल्ली/2022 (नि.व. 2017-18)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Clairvolex Ip Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 550/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.550/दिल्ली/2022(नि.व. 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Qualcomm India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 537/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

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

Techbooks International Private Limited, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3)(1), Gautam Buddha Nagar

ITA 507/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

3922/0/2017, 6045/D/2018 & 507/D/2022 TECH BOOKS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW DELHI BEFORE

Shahnaz Husain, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 28(1), Delhi

ITA 492/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthishahnaz Husain, W-61, Greater Kailash-1, Delhi 110048 Pan: Aabph-4011-P बनाम Vs. आअसं.538/दिल्ली/2021(नि.व. 2016-17)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Headstrong Services India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2403/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayheadstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit 12A, Ground Floor, Prakash Deep Circle 10(1) Building 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aabct7650D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

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

Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 19 (1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 2374/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

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

Software One India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

ITA 2072/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthisoftware One India P. Ltd., आभसं. 2072/दिल्ली/2022 (नि.व. 2018-19)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष