“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Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby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. Philips India Limited (Successor to Erstwhile Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T.(Transfer Pricing) - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/KOL/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 92C

92CA(3) of the Act and the TPO rejects the claim of the assessee and no amendment is carried out in the Transfer pricing order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, then, there will be no occasion to pass any amendment order by the ld. Assessing Officer under ... said rejection order before the Commissioner (Appeals), however, in respect of the suo-moto amendment brought by the ld. TPO in the Transfer Pricing order and as per provisions of sub-Section (6) to Section 92CA of the Act, the ld. Assessing Officer is supposed to carrying such amendments

M/S. Philips India Limited (Successor to Erstwhile Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T. (Transfer Pricing) - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/KOL/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 92C

Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), Delhi

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

ITA 475/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumarmckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 16 (1), 3Rd Floor, Block Iii, Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccm2356G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 21.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

effect (in his order dated 29 December 2021) to the directions of Hon'ble DRP by applying such directions proposed in the original transfer pricing order dated 30 January 2021 as against the rectified transfer pricing order dated 1 September 2021 (which was passed by the learned TPO before completion ... revenue from operations [B/A] E Total operating cost (including cost for 4,47,70,40,439 third party services) as per revised transfer pricing order dated 1 September 2021 6 F Less: Proportionate reduction in 9,00,80,957 operating cost to the extent of third- party income

Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1-Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the corporate additions made in the assessment order would not survive

ITA 641/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.641/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Limited Dcit (Formerly Known As Hospira Healthcare India Corporate Circle-5(2)-Ltu, बनाम/ Private Limited) Chennai. Vs. 237, Emerald Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabco-2190-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 14ASection 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 2(24)Section 31Section 35Section 92C

case of the Appellant since transfer pricing reference was made additional 12 months Time limit for issuance of Transfer Pricing Order as per Section 92CA(3A) of the Act - as upheld by the Hon'ble 31/10/2019 Madras High Court in the case of the Appellant in WA No. 1148 and1149 ... Date of issuance of Transfer Pricing Order in the case of 01/11/2019 the Appellant Date of issuance of Draft Assessment Order in the case 31/12/2019 of the Appellant 28/02/2020 Date of issuance of Final Assessment Order in the case of the Appellant Since the transfer pricing proceedings were barred

Zydus Lifesciences Limited (Formerly Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92BSection 92C

before us to this effect that the Transfer Pricing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) has erred in exceeding the jurisdiction by passing the transfer pricing order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act beyond the mandatory prescribed time limit as per Section 92CA(3A) r.w.s ... thereby making the transfer pricing order barred by limitation and invalid in law. In short, the order passed by the Ld. TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act is barred by limitation and thus bad in law, without jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be quashed. Consequently, the entire transfer

Uttam Energy Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-12, Pune

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

been made to persons specified in section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.’ Therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded that the reference and the Transfer Pricing order was void ab initio. The Ld.AR relied mainly on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s.Texport Overseas ... supra). In this case the reference to TPO was made on 18/09/2017, i.e. after the section 92BA(i) was omitted, also the Transfer Pricing Order was passed on 30/10/2018 i.e. after the section 92BA(i) was omitted, respectfully following the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s decision (supra) we hold

Takenaka India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD) Circle-25(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 5581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Cit (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aadct6143P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Cit(A)”)-44, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Correctness Of The Order On Following Grounds:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

year makes an even more CUP Method in first year of operations. compelling case for CUP as it is a direct method (Refer Transfer Pricing Order for FY 2011-12 on Pg 89 of the (Refer Transfer Pricing Order for FY Merit Appeal Paperbook) 2010-11 enclosed as Annexure ... taxmann.com 196 9 | P a g e Reliance on previous year's Courts have drawn a clear distinction between the principle of Transfer Pricing Order cannot 'res judicata' and the principle of 'consistency'. Even if Res- be placed as principle of 'Res judicata is not applicable in tax proceedings

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Bmtc Building, Koramangala

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

ITA 817/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 25oSection 270ASection 37Section 92C

adverse inference in respect of the international transactions entered into between the assessee and the associated enterprises. Page 4 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO issued 142(1) notice on 27/08/21 to verify the ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.9

Siemens Technology and Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 725/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Siemens Technology & Services Dy. Cit 8(2)(1) Private Limited Mumbai Plot No. 2, Sector 2, Kharghar, Vs. Node, Navi Mumbai- 410 210

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 3Section 92C

expired (stated in Sr.No. 4 above) 6 Sixty days period expired on 01.11.2019 [December = 30 days (excluding 31.12.2019) November=30 days] 7 Transfer Pricing Order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act 31.10.2019 should have been passed on/or before 8 Transfer pricing order u/s. 92CA(3) actually passed ... Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT law, consequently the draft assessment order is also held to be invalid. In the case of an invalid transfer pricing order and the draft assessment order, the ld. A.O. has no jurisdiction to assess u/s. 144C of the Act holding the assessee

India Medtronic P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 1335/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. 2. Before us several grounds have been taken on merits as well as additional ground challenging the validity of transfer pricing order and assessment order being barred by limitation. 3. The brief background and the facts qua the legal issue raised that transfer pricing order ... passed an order on 01/11/2019 which is beyond the time limit provided in Section 92CA(3A) of the Act which requires the transfer pricing order to be passed "at any time before sixty days prior to the timeline for the assessment order”. Thus, it is implied that such order must

Pr. CIT-9, Mumbai vs. M/S Best Seller Fashion India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 4783/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Best Seller Fashion India Pr. Cit-9 Pvt. Ltd. Room No.65A, 6Th Floor, Lalit Residency, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, The Lalit Mumbai, Vs. M.K. Road, Sahar Airport, Sahar, Churchgate-400 020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400 059 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb2906M Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kumar & Shri Jabir Contractor, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kumar &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR

Section 143(3)

these two comparables was determined at 13.54% whereas the margin of the assessee was 6.12%; he made an adjustment of ₹ 71,600,000. Transfer pricing order was passed on 21/1/2016. The draft order was passed on 12th February 2016. The 07. assessee submitted that they do not want to file

Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dua, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43(6)Section 43B

dated 30.03.2021 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: A. General Grounds of Appeal 1. That the Transfer Pricing Order ["TP Order"] dated 26/09/2019 passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92AC["the TPO"]/Draft Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer ... Mobase India P Ltd.,  In the draft Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer has only proposed adjustment on account of the Transfer Pricing Order of Rs. 216,12,356/- to the total loss as per ITR of Rs. 523,09,629/-.  The ld. DRP deleted the addition proposed

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

Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld. AO in the impugned case deserve to be deleted on the merit for the year under consideration. Thus, the grounds raised are allowed and appeal of asseessee ...

ITA 3672/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmastay Application No.52/Del/2024 (Ita No.3672/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Limited, Circle-1(1)(1), Dublin (Ireland), International Taxation, 4-6, Riverwalk, Citywest Business New Delhi. Campus, Saggart, Dublin 24, Ireland. Pan: Aahca7203M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. 2. The Stay Application In Hand Has Been Filed For The Stay Of Demand In Regard To Ay 2021-22 And, During The Course Of Argument, It Was Submitted By Ita No.52/Del/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)

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

J P Morgan Chase Bank N.A Mumbai Branch, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Mumbai -3, Mumbai

ITA 1235/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं. 1235/मुं/2022 (नि.व. 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate withFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma,CIT-DR

Section 263

stating that reference received is not valid considering CBDT's Internal Office Memorandum(F No.370142/24/2021-TPL), which provided that the last date to pass transfer pricing order was 31/07/2021 and the said date has elapsed, hence reference cannot be acted upon at this stage. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer on 12/10/2021 made

Ingram Micro India Ssc P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Range-14(1)(1) (Jurisdictional Asssessing Oficer), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1320/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Mentioned That He Is Pressing Only Grounds Number 2(G) Which Pertains To Inclusion Of Certain Companies By The Tpo Which Are Not Functionally Comparable. Therefore, We Are Not Elaborating On Any Other Issue. The Facts Pertaining To The Ground 2(G) As Culled Out From The Records Are Narrated Below. Other Grounds Raised Are Dismissed As Not Pressed.

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

companies as comparable with a mean of 28.90%. An adjustment of INR 4,64,42,458/- was proposed by the TPO in Transfer Pricing Order dated 30thOctober 2019. 5. The assessee approached the Ld. DRP. It was pointed out before the Ld. DRP that 2 new companies introduced

America Express Services India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3525/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

selected applying same incorrect approach/ criteria (kindly refer para 8 on internal page 15 and also para 2 on page 19 of the transfer pricing order for AY 05-06, similar error has been committed in A Y 06-07 as a reference to paras

M/S. American Express Services India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3447/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Atos India Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 14 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

ITA 1576/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleatos India Private Limited V. Acit – 14(1)(1) Unit No. 1401, 14Th Floor Rom No. 481, 4Th Floor Supremus “E" Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 I Think Techno Campus Kanjurmarg (E), Mumbai - 400042 Pan: Aaaco2461J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Riddi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 144C(5)

beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 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. Ground No. 12: 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 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai (ACIT-14(1)(1)) in passing the draft assessment order dated

Tableau Internation Unlimited Copmany the Oval Shelbourne Road Ovel Ballsbridge Dublin, Ireland D04E7K5, Ireland vs. DCIT, Circle3(1)(1) Internatioanal Taxation, Delhi

Appeal stands allowed in terms as indicated above

ITA 1875/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234DSection 244A

respectfully submitted that the judiciary has been consistently holding that infirmities in issuance of statutory notices, draft assessment order, transfer pricing order or any other order in the course of assessment prior to passing of the final assessment order would invalidate the entire assessment, as the case

Varian Medical Systems International(India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 510/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

applied the median of 6.55% to compute the adjustment at INR 139,971,558 in relation with the aforesaid international transactions in the Transfer Pricing Order. The Ld. AO issued the draft assessment order following the order issued by the Ld. TPO. 11. Aggrieved by the Draft Assessment Order issued ... Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt.Ltd. 30. Further the Assessee sought inclusion of the following comparable companies rejected by the TPO in the transfer pricing order: 30.1 C G-V A K Software & Exports Ltd. The assessee submitted that C G-V A K Software & Exports Ltd. passes