← All Phrases

“arms length price”

Transfer PricingSection 92Section 92791 judgments

The decision most relied on for arms length price is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), cited in 422 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on arms length price

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
376 ITR 183 · 2015 · High Court
170
citing judgments

For transfer pricing comparability analysis, companies should not be excluded solely based on higher turnover if they are otherwise functionally comparable, unless the turnover difference reflects fundamental functional dissimilarities, brand value, or risk profiles that materially impact profitability.

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.
430 ITR 298 · 2021 · High Court
132
citing judgments

A corporate guarantee issued to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring adjustments for guarantee commission due to inherent risk. The reasonable arm's length rate for benchmarking such corporate guarantees can be determined using internal or external comparable uncontrolled prices.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT
381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 206 · 2015 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When determining the arm's length price for interest on a foreign currency loan advanced to an Associated Enterprise, the Indian Prime Lending Rate is not applicable. Instead, the interest rate should be benchmarked based on the prevailing foreign currency rate, such as EURIBOR, or the rate in the country where the loan is received/consumed.

Judgments citing arms length price

Federal-Mogul Goetze India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 4407/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida,Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

ITA Nos. 5422/D/24, 5407/24, 5376/D/24, 5342/D/24, 5371/D/24, 5340/D/24, 4407/D/24, 4337/D/24, 3907/D/24 89862/D/19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Boeing India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 4337/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida,Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

ITA Nos. 5422/D/24, 5407/24, 5376/D/24, 5342/D/24, 5371/D/24, 5340/D/24, 4407/D/24, 4337/D/24, 3907/D/24 89862/D/19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram

ITA 3299/CHNY/2024[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3299/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. Dormakaba India Private Limited, Plot No.48/3, Mahindra World City, 8Th Avenue, Anjur Village, Paranur Anjur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District – 603 002. [Pan:Aaacd-3980-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Saddik Ahmed, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 30.09.2024, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 1(1), Chennai (In Short “Ao”) U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Dated 01.03.2022. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Saddik Ahmed, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 92B

records are that initially when the assessment was completed the international transactions has been referred to transfer pricing officer for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP). The then Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) seem to have made 2 adjustments one in relation to the margin of the Assessee and an another

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 917/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs4024Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92C

respect of payment of Royalty 3. 1. The Ld. AO erred in upholding the metho followed by the TPO for determination of "Arms length price of Royalty payment. 3. 2. The Ld. AO erred in confirming the adjustment made u/s 92CA(3) of the Act for Rs.28 ... ought to have appreciated that no interest can be charged on receivables when the principal transaction is at arms length price which has been accepted by the TPO. 5.10 The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated that the outstanding receivables are foreign currency receivables and that the same have