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Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby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

Deepali Kiran Potnis, Kalyan vs. ITO. Int. Tax, Ward-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

92CA(2) issued by the TPO on 05-12-2018 5. Show cause Notice issued by the TPO on 15-10-2019 6. Transfer pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 31-10-2019 7. Draft Assessment Order passed by AO u/s. 144C on 28-12-2019 8. Objections filed

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Singapore USD 2,25,09,54,147 Total 8,17,98,77,459 7. Further, it is submitted that Ld. TPO in the transfer pricing order passed by him, contended that the assessee has not charged any fee from Page No. | 7 ITA NOs. 775, 776, 2097 & 2098/MUM/2021

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

For Appellant: Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 92CSection 92C(4)

order given that the Appellant does not fall within the definition of "eligible assessee" as per Section 144C of the Act as the transfer pricing order is invalid and thus entire assessment is bad in law as provisions of sections 144C(1) of the Act are not applicable ... 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

Fusion Jewellery Mfg. Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

ITA 3853/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 92C

aforesaid. Firstly, the PCIT failed to appreciate that as per Section 92CA(4) of the Act, on receipt of Transfer Pricing Order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer was mandated to compute total income of the Appellant under Section

3I Infotech Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 15, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

interest free loan to AE without appreciating the fact that it is a general practice to mention in the assessment/ transfer pricing order the matters for which adjustments/ disallowances are made and that the transactions whose ALP is accepted or expenses for which no disallowances are to be made ... find any place in either assessment order or in Transfer Pricing Order. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing revision order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with respect to an international transaction which falls within the jurisdiction

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. World Sports (India) P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed and departments appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5328/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Karan P. Unavekar (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153BSection 92C

additional grounds raised in this regard are reproduced as under:- “1. The Transfer Pricing Officer [ACIT-TP-II(6)] erred in passing the Transfer pricing Order under section 92CA(3) dated 30.01.2014, beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A). The Appellants submit that the Transfer Pricing Order ... date of events to decide the legal issue which is raised in the present appeal before us: Calculation of due date for passing transfer pricing order u/s 92CA(3) Asst. Order due date as per section 153 of the Act for 31.03.2014 AY. 2009-10. Transfer Pricing Order due date

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

account of share application money) and Rs.1,32,99,750/- (on account of Guarantee Commission) and 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

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. World Sports (India) P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO as well as appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5329/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Co No. 267/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No.5329/Mum/2017 For A.Y. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

application for additional grounds of appeal, raising following two grounds:- “1. The Transfer Pricing Officer (ACIT-TP-II(6)) erred in passing the Transfer pricing order under Section 92CA(3) dated 30.01.2014, beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 92CA(3A). The appellants submit that the Transfer ... which should have been passed on or before 29th January, 2014 and therefore, there is delay of one day in passing the transfer pricing order. Therefore, the adjustment proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer is barred by limitation. Accordingly, as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court

World Sports Group (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-20, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO as well as appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5240/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Co No. 267/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No.5329/Mum/2017 For A.Y. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle Gurgaon, Gurugram vs. Lummus Technology Heat Trasfer Bv- India Branch Office, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8919/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 44D

business or 47,89,294 profession Additions Adjustment to the arm's length price on 1,33,07,224 provision as per the transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) of the Act. Disallowance of proportionate expenses 4,31,695 in relation to income taxable under section 44D Estimate basis ... Profit Level Indicator (PLI) to demonstrate the arm's length nature of the international transaction. 11. The TPO, in the transfer pricing order dated September 29, 2010 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act, rejected the economic analysis of the Appellant and computed the ALP of the international transactions

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle Gurgaon, Gurugram vs. Lummus Technology Heat Trasfer Bv- India Branch Office, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8918/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 44D

DCIT, International Taxation, Circle Gurgaon, Gurugram vs. Lummus Technology Heat Trasfer Bv- India Branch Office, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8917/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 44D

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-4, Bangalore

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

ITA 2588/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

Ld.AR, we are adjudicating only Ground nos. 2, 7.1, 7.3 and 14. 2.3 The assessee submits that, the Ld.TPO in the original transfer pricing order dated 28/10/2009 selected certain set of comparables. In the original transfer pricing order, the Ld.TPO did not make any adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing ... speaking and reasoned order. The assessee also raised appropriate grounds on the comparables selected by the Ld.TPO in the original transfer pricing order. The said grounds and the submissions made by the assessee were appreciated by Coordinate Bench and the matter was remanded to the Ld.AO for a fresh decision

D.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Electrosteel Casting Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Income-Tax, Central G.K. Tower Vs. Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, Camac Street Kolkata -700017 (Pan: Aaace4975B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

international transaction' and therefore no benchmarking exercise was required to be carried out by it in this regard. On examination of the transfer pricing order, it is noted that the Ld. TPO was not in agreement with the contention put forth' by the appellant. The Ld. TPO computed

Craftsman Automation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 652/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.652/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.N.ArjunrajFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

consequent to order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, vide order F.No.420/DRP-2/BNG/2015-16 dated 28.12.2015, u/s.144C(5) of the :- 2 -: Act. The Transfer Pricing Order was passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer- 1(1), Chennai, u/s.92CA(3) of the Act, vide Order F.No.DCIT(TP)C- 437/TPO-1

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

January 2014, which was barred by 29/Mum/2018 & CO No. 21/Mum/2019 M/s. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. limitation, thereby rendering the transfer pricing order as null and void as per the provisions of Section 92CA(3A) read with Section 153 of the Act. 32. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... order given that the Appellant does not fall within the definition of "eligible assessee" as per Section 144C of the Act as the transfer pricing order is invalid and thus entire assessment of section 144C(1) of the Act are not applicable to the Appellant

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

failed to adopt a consistent approach in determining the arm's length price for benchmarking this transaction of the Assessee in transfer pricing order since if the projections are replaced with actual under revised valuation, all events happening up to date of revision ought to have been considered. The valuation

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 650/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M M GolwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

pricing adjustment of INR 41,55,262/- on account of Guarantee Commission. However, the TPO, taking note of the fact that in the transfer pricing orders for earlier assessment years external CUP was used for determining the ALP, adopted a rate of 1.25% per annum as ALP for guarantee commission

Abbott India Ltd (As Successor to Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

himself. which can be cross-checked and verified, in case of doubts The TPO has, at page 11 of the transfer pricing order himself stated that "the product data compiled in the TIPS database is taken from customs data relating to rice, but also specifies the variety and brand

Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 282/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92DSection 9A(3)

biased and prejudiced approach to the transfer pricing assessment. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the actions of the Ld. TPO/ NFAC. Transfer pricing order is void ab initio as transfer pricing proceedings were 2. not conducted in a faceless manner The transfer pricing order dated January