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Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6835/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Takata India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 25(1), (Now Joyson Anand Abhishek New Delhi Safety Systems Pvt Ltd.,) Plot No.20, Sector-5, Imt Manesar, Gurugram (Haryana)-122050 Pan/Gir No. Aacct 7200 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Jadhav, CIT (DR)

Pricing Officer vide its order dated 29.1.2015 conducted the T.P.Study and suggested an adjustment of Rs.13,81,10,475/-. After the arrival of Transfer Pricing order, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order vide order dated 16.3.2015 and made an addition of Rs.13.81 crores, as suggested by the Transfer

M/S. Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2610/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Philips India Limited Rajarhat 4A, 5Th Floor, Ecospace The Dcit Business Park, Premises A4 Ii, Circle 11(1), Aayakar Bhavan, New Town, Chakpachuria, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700156 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

year the assessee earned markup of 11.8% as has been noted by the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer on page no.192 of the Transfer Pricing order. The method applied for benchmarking these services was Transactional Net Margin Method, which was not disputed by the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer and similarly

M/S. International Specialty Products (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3255/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

length price (ALP) in respect of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. Ld. TPO made the following adjustments in the Transfer Pricing Order: 3 International Specialty Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 S. No. International Transaction Adjustment in Rs. 1 Provision of ITES 1,20,93,662/- 2 Contract ... made an adjustment of Rs. 72,32,382/- by conducting an independent analysis applying TNMM method. 4.3. Ld. Assessing Officer after considering the Transfer Pricing Order, passed the Draft Assessment Order. Assessee filed objections against the draft assessment order before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel 4 International Specialty Products (India

Red Hat India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ITO/ Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2442/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Red Hat India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of A-201, Supreme Business Park, Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Supreme City, Vs. Circle-15(3)(1), Hiranandani Gardens, Mumbai. Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan : Aabcr7097N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajit Jain, For Revenue : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2025 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J.M : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27/07/2022 Passed By The Acit, Circle 15(3)(1) Mumbai, U/S 144C(13) For The A.Y. 2018-19, In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai-2, Dated 15/06/2022 U/S 144C(5).

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

assessee. The Ld.TPO thus proposed an adjustment of Rs.4,93,81,788/- being the shortfall in the revenue. 12. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 22/09/2021 proposing addition in the hands of the assessee amounting

JCIT(OSD) I/C. of DCIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zt Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as per our aforesaid observations

ITA 1729/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1729/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), I/C. Dcit-1(3)(1), Mumbai (M.H.)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 92C

Appellant in terms of the provisions of section 115A read with section 115-0 of the Act 6.4 Based on the transfer pricing order, the Id AO passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 20 January 2020 making adjustment

M/S Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 92C

Disregarding the favourable order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 and the consequent transfer pricing orders passed by the TPO deleting the adjustment appreciating the 50:50 revenue sharing model and verifying the relevant documentary evidence on the ground that the said

M/S Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3195/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 92C

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 2052/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 1688/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

ITA 9080/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Ambattur Clothing Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1957/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1957/Chny/2017 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ambattur Clothing Ltd [Now Demerged & Known As M/S. Ambattur Fashion India Pvt. Ltd.] No.86/E-2, Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai– 600 058. (Pan:Aaaca-4127-D) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Sp Chidambaram, Advocate. Mr. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. 09.07.2025 31.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 21.06.2017 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1) For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed In Compliance To Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (Drp) Vide Order Dated 11.05.2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Readymade Garments To Ae & Non- Ae'S. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Υ.2013-14 On 30.11.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.11,57,20,670/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. A :-2-:

Section 92C

asset designs, sale of spares, reimbursement. The Assessee in its TP documentation benchmarked these international transactions under CUP method. The TPO in the Transfer Pricing Order has observed the following: "Purchase and sale of raw materials: The Assessee submitted that the extra stock available with itself

Dow Chemical International, Mumbai vs. Addl /Joint/Dy. /Asstt Comm of Income Tax /ITO, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1940/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accou Ntant Member आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1940/Mum/2021 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dow Chemical V/S. The Dcit/Acit, Ward International Private बिाम 14(1)(2), Mumbai Limited The Godrej It Park, P2, 1St Additional/Joint/Deputy Floor, Block B, 02 Lbs /Assistant Commissioner Of Road, Godrej Business Income Tax/Income District Phirojshanagar, Tax Officer, National Vikhroli (W), Mumbai E-Assessment Centre, Delhi 400079 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacd4467B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Hitesh Thakkar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

transfer pricing assessment order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on 1 November 2019, which was barred by 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. 3. Erred in continuing assessment

DCIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3190/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalcarlsberg India Private Limited, Dy. Cit, 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Circle-5(2), Commercial Complex,D-4, Saket, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) (Assessment Year 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Carlsberg India Private Circle-5(2), Limited, New Delhi. Vs. 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Commercial Complex, D-4, Saket, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca & Shri Paras Sharma, Ar & Ms. Ruchika Mittal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered by the appellant. The TPO vide its order dated 10th July, 2014 passed the transfer pricing order after making adjustment of Rs.32.32 Crs. on account of AMP expenses incurred by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order making

Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3150/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4783/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

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

appropriate adjustments, and inappropriate consideration/non-consideration of the information, arguments and evidence provided by the Appellant. 2. Validity of assessment proceedings 2.1. The Transfer Pricing Order ("TP Order") dated 27.07.2023 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act, and the final assessment order dated 23.07.2024 ("Impugned Order") passed under section ... remittances not 915.66 in the nature of reimbursements or recoveries Adjustment by levy of mark-up @10.98% 100.54 3.3 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO. On receipt of the draft assessment order

Portescap India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6749/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

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

Services Availed From AE 3,39,49,826/- Total 24,18,73,364/- 5. On receipt of transfer pricing order the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 18/12/2023 proposing to add the adjustment as proposed in order passed u/s.92C(3) of the Act. 25 ITA No.6749/Mum/2024

Precision Camshafts Ltd., Solapur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (NFAC), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Precision Camshafts Ltd., V Assessment Unit, Income Tax E-102/103, Akkalkot Road, S Department (National Midc, Solapur – 413006. Faceless Assessment Center), Maharashtra. Jurisdiction Details : Pne- C(1), Range 63, Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 25.07.2024, Emanating From Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act For A.Y.2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 92(3)Section 928Section 92C

that Assessee had not charged any Guarantee Commission on the Corporate Guarantee given to the bank on behalf of AE- PCL Netherland. The Transfer Pricing Order at Paragraph-6 has reiterated the reasons given by the Assessee which are reproduced here as under : ITA No.1962/PUN/2024 [A] Quote “Assessee has cited ... that no guarantee commission needs to be charged. Accordingly, we direct the AO/TPO to delete the addition. ITA No.1962/PUN/2024 [A] 4.6 In the Transfer Pricing Order the TPO has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders

Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4063/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2) India Pvt. Ltd. D-181, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area , Phase-1 New Delhi- 110020 Pan :Aaack4816D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

observed in his order as under: A.Y. 2008-09 M/s. Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. ITO 6 “I have perused the transfer pricing order in respect of fresh search undertaken by the TPO in respect of function related to commission income. Ld TPO has used the word commission income or commission

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. M/S. IAC International Automotive India Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand

Section 143(2)Section 92Section 92C

reasons provided in para 3.4 & 3.5 of his appellate order observing as under : “3.4 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, transfer pricing order and submission filed by the appellant. The issue is regarding upward adjustment done by the AO/TPO to the international transaction of payment of management

Mirza International Limited, Kanpur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 35/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 80Section 92Section 92C

preclude the TPO from changing the most appropriate method if the situation so warrants. The Ld. Sr. D.R. placed reliance on the Transfer Pricing Order and the directions of the Hon'ble DRP in both the years under appeal and submitted that the assessee’s appeals deserved to be dismissed