“transfer pricing order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 92CASection 92CA358 judgments

The decision most relied on for transfer pricing order is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. (445 ITR 537), cited in 269 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on transfer pricing order

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court

269

citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India

2 SCC 536 · 2000 · Reported

117

citing judgments

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby affecting the continuation of pending proceedings.

International Air Transport Association v. DCIT

68 Taxmann.com 246 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to follow the procedure laid down in Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, constitutes a breach of mandatory provisions, rendering the final assessment order void.

Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

433 ITR 28 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

A transfer pricing order passed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period, computed in accordance with Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT

124 Taxmann.com 536 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

Assessment orders made beyond the time limits prescribed under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, considering the specific provisions for transfer pricing assessments, are liable to be quashed.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. ACIT

106 ITD 521 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

The benchmarking of interest rates on loans advanced to associated enterprises in foreign currency should consider LIBOR, comparing related transactions involving loan advancements and interest charges.

DCIT v. Saint Gobain India (P.) Ltd.

444 ITR 636 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

An order passed by the TPO is bad in law if it is beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 92CA(3A) read with section 153 of the Act.

Barclays Bank PLC v. ADIT

90 Taxmann.com 378 · 2018 · Reported

citing judgments

A transfer pricing officer (TPO) must follow the prescribed method under section 92C for determining the arm's length price. If the TPO fails to do so, the matter cannot be remanded back to the TPO, and the ITAT order should be followed.

Judgments citing transfer pricing order

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd, Ireland vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in terms indicate above

ITA 804/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Ltd., 406, Riverwalk, Citywest Circle-1(1)(1), Business Campus, Saggart, International Dublin 24, Ireland Taxation, Pan-Aahca7203M New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Vizay B.Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Acit, Circle-International Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi Dated 24.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

cases, it has found that the transactions have been found to be at Arm's Length by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the Transfer pricing order of the AE i.e. Adobe India. This is not disputed by the Revenue. In such a situation, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Ahlstrom Fibercomposites India Pvt. Ltd., Mundra (Kutch) vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

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

ITA 437/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 92

Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham ['AO'] under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and Transfer Pricing order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer 2, Ahmedabad ('TPO') and in pursuance of the directions issued

Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7861/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153Section 80ISection 92C

time barred in terms of the provisions of section 153 of the Act, 3. erred in holding that the order of the transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 30 October 2018 was valid; 4. erred in holding that the reference to the TPO made

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

crores on account of shortfall in price of shares issued to the AE and interest on deemed loan. Upon receipt of the said transfer pricing order, the AO passed a draft assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C(1) of the Act dated 22.03.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant challenged

Boeing India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 802/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 92

final assessment order passed in case of the Appellant whereas the same arises out of transactions entered by BICIPL and basis the Transfer Pricing Order passed in case of BICIPL. 4. On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP grossly erred

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai City vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai City

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2005/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

also be of the order enhancing, modifying the assessment order cancelling the assessment order directing a fresh assessment. With respect to the transfer pricing order, it can be an order modifying the order under section 92CA order or cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai City vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai City

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2004/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2003/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2002/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd (Sucessor to Heinz India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -4(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds on the legal issue raised in ground No

ITA 1488/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1488/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2016-17) Zydus Wellness Products Limited (Successor To Heinz India Private Limited) Unit Nos. 1901 & 1902, 19Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Off Western Expressway Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Aaach-0667-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

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

limitation referred to section 153 expires'. Excluding 31-12- 2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 1-11-2019 and the transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31-10-2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also ... indicates the date by which the Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31-10-2019. The impugned orders are thus, held to be barred by limitation.” 6. When provisions of section 92CA(3A) of the Act as explained by the Hon’ble Madras High Court are applied

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

raised following additional grounds in its appeal: - “Ground No. 14. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the transfer pricing order dated 30th September, 2005, passed under section 92CA (3) is beyond jurisdiction and thus null and void.” 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

Siemens Technology and Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC/ DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

92CA(3) of the Act is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA (3A) r.w.s. 153 of the Act, thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Ground No. 19 On the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 30 March 2021 by invoking section 144C

Apm Terminals India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed, holding that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and hence quashed

ITA 2511/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri Manish Kant and DeveshFor Respondent: Pravin D Salunkhe, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 80ISection 92C

have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the timelines mentioned in the assessment order itself. Admittedly, in this case, the transfer pricing order under section 92CA (3) of the Act was passed on 12/07/2021. Based on the above transfer pricing order, the draft assessment order under section 144C

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

ITA 913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

cases, it has found that the transactions have been found to be at Arm's Length by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the Transfer pricing order of the AE ie. Adobe India. This is not disputed by the Revenue. In such a situation, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex ... cases, it has found that the transactions have been found to be at Arm's Length by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the Transfer pricing order of the AE i.e. Adobe India. This is not disputed by the Revenue. In such a situation, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

DCIT, Circle-1(2), New Delhi vs. Agrozan India P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 6168/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit Agrozan India P. Ltd. Circle 1 (2) Vs C-1, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aakca0249C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92C

agitated before the CIT(A) and the assessee was successful hence this appeal by the revenue. 12. On careful perusal of the Transfer Pricing order we find that the TPO without providing any reason for rejecting the TP document and without even discussing the TP study of assessee arbitrarily applied

Toyoda Micromatic Machinery India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 849/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

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

many grounds. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground no.4 that the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer has issued the transfer pricing order u/s 92CA of the Act without quoting the mandatory DIN in conformity with para 2 and 3 of Circular No.19/2019 dated 14 August ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that the TPO order doesn’t bear DIN in the light of Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. The said transfer pricing order is void-ab-initio. It is also submitted that DRP order also falls in the definition of communication for the purpose of CBDT Circular

Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt./Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1222/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

Rs.51,99,90,056/-. 5. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. J.D. Mistry submitted that here in this case the transfer pricing order u/s. 92CA(3) was passed on 01/11/2019, whereas the last date of passing the order was 31/12/2019 and therefore, in view of the decision ... reported in (2023) 103 ITR(T) 296 and Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 366. Accordingly, we hold that transfer pricing order itself is barred by limitation. Once the ld. TPO’s order is held to be nullity on the ground that it is barred

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1654/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

providing any reasons for disregarding the assessee’s approach of determining the arm’s length price at an entity level in the Transfer Pricing order. 3. The ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP Members have erred in law and facts by rejecting the entity wide operating profit margin

Gammon India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92B(1)

considered for adjudication. 9. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee pressed the Additional grounds relating to the validity of Transfer pricing order and submitted that the issue under consideration is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Mondelez India Food ... Relevant date/ period no. 5. Sixty day period expires on 30.01.2014 March – 30 days (excluding 31.03.2014) February- 28 days January- 2 days 6. Transfer Pricing order u/s 92CA(3) of 29.01.2014 the Act to be passed on or before 7. Date on which Transfer Pricing Order 30.01.2014 u/s 92CA