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Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby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

Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 209/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

days credit. 2.8 The Ld.TPO thus worked out the proposed adjustment at Rs.1,30,90,069/-. 2.9 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by further making addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) in respect of the reimbursement of salary and other related costs

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

submitted that since the loan was repaid during the year, the CG also ceased to exist. The Ld.TPO however while passing the transfer pricing order u/s. 92CA, held that, corporate guarantee if is charged as a risk premium by the corporate guarantor being the assessee. The Ld.TPO also held that

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.ws 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... 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 31 March 2015 by invoking section 144C of the Act is without

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1695/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 69/2 & 69/3, Commissioner Of Kunigal Road, Income Tax, Jakkasandra, Circle – 6(1)(1), Nelamangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 562 123. Pan: Aabcs7591Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Assessee By Ca : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Revenue By Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20/05/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law. Transfer Pricing - General Grounds 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao & Tpo In: A) Making A Reference For The Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price Of The International Transactions To The Tpo

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain

segment Adjustment to trading segment Para 9 81,59,183 TOTAL 1,21,29,221 3. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 24/03/2016, incorporating the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO. The Ld.AO also made certain disallowances being software capitalized

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R

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

short fall as under: IT(TP)A No.190/Bang/2022 M/s. Radisys India Limited, Bangalore Page 11 of 50 2.5 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order by proposing to make an addition in the hands of assessee at Rs.18,29,67,620/-. 2.6. The assessee

Shell India Markets P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1492/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor, Tower -3 (Wing C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaacc-0460-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 5 (1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.1576/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2,Mumbai, World Trade Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 005 बनाम Vs. M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ltd. 1018, Maker Chambers –V, 10Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaics-1404-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha ,CIT-DR

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

days Last date for passing the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act 29-01-2014 Date of passing the transfer-pricing order (‘TP order’) under section 30-01-2014 92CA(3) of the Act 12. The relevant extract of the provisions of section 92CA(3A) and section ... 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

DCIT, (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 1576/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha ,CIT-DR

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

Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 1492/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha ,CIT-DR

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

Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 200/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 92C

payment to CCD 2. Adjustment under Royalty Rs.47,57,01,597/- Total Rs.304,03,79,433/- On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order in which he incorporated the aforesaid TP adjustment and further made addition by disallowing certain expenditure u/s. 14A r.w.Rule 8D amounting

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 292/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Ld.TPO computed the interest on outstanding receivables as a proposed adjustment at Rs.1,51,661/-. 2.8 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by making further disallowance in respect of the expenditure claimed as rent amounting to Rs.13,72,413/-. 2.9 On receipt

Draegerwerk Ag & Co.Kgaa, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 547/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 274Section 92C

transaction was similarly disclosed in the Form 3CEB for AY 2016-17 and has also been acknowledged by the ld. TPO in the transfer pricing order of AY 2016-17 at Para 5.3. Further, no adjustment was made by the ld. TPO on account of such guarantee in the preceding

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2CSection 40Section 92C

bench, we hold that the order date 01.11.2019 is passed beyond the period of limitation and therefore the adjustment proposed by way of transfer pricing order u/s. 92CA(3), therefore needs to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) – Ground No.15 & 16 15. During the year

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2084/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2084/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Eversendai Construction- V. The Dy. Commissioner- Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.1 & 2, The Lords, Corporate Circle-2(1), Block-1, 5Th Floor, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Pricing ground - upward adjustment to arm's length price. General Ground 2.1 The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the consequential transfer pricing order and the final assessment order is erroneous in so far as determining and quantifying a upward adjustment of Rs.85,15,716/- to the value

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thomson Holding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue stands dismissed

ITA 869/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Thomson Holding India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Robinson Air The Deputy Services Central Commissioner Of Income Warehousing Tax, Corporation, Circle – 16(1), Opp. Sbi Colony, New Delhi. Rana Pratap Bagh, Vs. G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi – 110 033. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Technicolor India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Thomson The Deputy Holdings India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Bestech Chambers Circle – 16(1), Block B, Sushant Lok-I, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent : Shri Mukesh Butani, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Butani

Section 920(2)

contesting the issues / comparables under the two segments, in the subsequent years for exclusion. At that juncture, the Ld.Counsel also referred to the transfer pricing order dated 24/01/2013, wherein a direction was issued by the Ld.TPO to initiate penalty proceedings which could be a consequence in case the present appeal

M/S. Thomson Holdings India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1911/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Butani

Section 920(2)

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate

Section 143(2)

outstanding receivables at Rs.10,59,82,896/- by applying a 6 month LIBOR + 400 basis points i.e. 4.38%. 2.17 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by disallowing a sum of Rs.29,67,677/- as income from other sources. Assessee against the draft

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

IT(TP)A Nos.344 & 703/Bang/2021 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

IT(TP)A Nos.344 & 703/Bang/2021 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH