← All Phrases

“associated enterprises”

Transfer PricingSection 92ASection 92A2,081 judgments

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

Leading authorities on associated enterprises

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.

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
118 ITR 261 · 1979 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

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.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.
55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court
273
citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd.
36 Taxmann.com 289 · 2013 · High Court
171
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that Infosys Ltd. is not comparable to a captive software development service provider for transfer pricing analysis, given its huge turnover, high profit margins, ownership of intangible intellectual property rights, branded products, and differing risk profile.

DIT v. Morgan Stanley Co. Inc.
399 ITR 34 · 2017 · Supreme Court
162
citing judgments

Once a transfer pricing analysis has been undertaken for an Indian associated enterprise, no further profits are attributable to it as a Permanent Establishment, thereby extinguishing the need for additional profit attribution.

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.

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
114 ITD 448 · 2008 · ITAT
131
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

Judgments citing associated enterprises

Calsonic Kansei Motherson Auto Products Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

ITA 4500/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal

income of the Appellant proposed by the Ld. TPO, pertaining to manufacturing and related services rendered to its Associated Enterprises (AES), does not satisfy the arm's length principle under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In doing so, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO grossly erred in upholding

Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - Int Tax 1(3)(1), Delhi

ITA 4477/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 92C

133A of the Act was carried out on 25-27 February, 2019 at the premises of India branch of the assessee and its Indian associated enterprise, Genpact India Private Limited, or GIPL, (formerly Genpact India) including inter-alia the following premises: DLF Phase V. Sector 53, Gurugram, Haryana and Plot ... TPO/DRP/AO have grossly erred in partly disallowing the support services cost amounting to INR 9,32,12,889 paid by the Appellant to its associated enterprise, and while doing so, have erred in: 3.1 rejecting the arm's length price as determined by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation

Kohinoor Foods Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 92B

called for. 14. Similarly for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2016-17, we observe that the assessee has made substantial sale to the Non-Associated Enterprises and has also not charged any interest on the delayed payments. We observe that in Assessment Year 2014-15 there was substantial sale

Kohinoor Foods Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1442/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 92B

called for. 14. Similarly for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2016-17, we observe that the assessee has made substantial sale to the Non-Associated Enterprises and has also not charged any interest on the delayed payments. We observe that in Assessment Year 2014-15 there was substantial sale

Kohinoor Foods Ltd, Faridabad vs. ACIT Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1441/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 92B

called for. 14. Similarly for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2016-17, we observe that the assessee has made substantial sale to the Non-Associated Enterprises and has also not charged any interest on the delayed payments. We observe that in Assessment Year 2014-15 there was substantial sale

Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 508/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 36(1)(iii)

Acme Cleantech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC as overseas. During the year under consideration, the assessee has entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE). Observing this fact the AO made a reference to the TPO. The Ld. TPO vide its order dated 7th February, 2012 computed ... Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee argued following points: (a) that assessee has not charged any interest from the Non-Associated Enterprises. (b) Similar disallowance were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 and Revenue has not filed

Acme Cleantech, Haryana vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2142/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 36(1)(iii)

Acme Cleantech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC as overseas. During the year under consideration, the assessee has entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE). Observing this fact the AO made a reference to the TPO. The Ld. TPO vide its order dated 7th February, 2012 computed ... Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee argued following points: (a) that assessee has not charged any interest from the Non-Associated Enterprises. (b) Similar disallowance were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 and Revenue has not filed

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

length price of 'international transactions' of sale of APIs and formulations, undertaken by the Appellant with the Associated Enterprises ("AEs"), on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") and Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"). 3.1 That the AO/TPO/DRP erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dsv Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Formerlyut Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross

ITA 534/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 37Section 92F

forwarding by air or sea of general commodities. 3. 1. The Ld.AO noted that the assessee had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE's) beyond the threshold limit. Thus a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld.TPO). The Ld.TPO called for economic details of the transaction with ... underlying documentation. As per the OECD Guidelines, transfer-pricing analysis is intrinsically time-specific and must reflect conditions at the time the associated enterprises transact. The Commissioner nevertheless treated the relief granted in 2010-11 as a surrogate for proof of services in 2012-13, thereby evading the evidentiary standards

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dsv Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Ut Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross

ITA 533/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beenna Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 37Section 92F

forwarding by air or sea of general commodities. 3. 1. The Ld.AO noted that the assessee had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE's) beyond the threshold limit.Thusa reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld.TPO). The Ld.TPO called for economic details of the transaction with ... underlying documentation. As per the OECD Guidelines, transfer-pricing analysis is intrinsically time-specific and must reflect conditions at the time the associated enterprises transact. The Commissioner nevertheless treated the relief granted in 2010-11 as a surrogate for proof of services in 2012-13, thereby evading the evidentiary standards

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dsv Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Ut Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross

ITA 532/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 37Section 92F

forwarding by air or sea of general commodities. 3. 1. The Ld.AO noted that the assessee had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE's) beyond the threshold limit.Thus a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld.TPO). The Ld.TPO called for economic details of the transaction with ... underlying documentation. As per the OECD Guidelines, transfer-pricing analysis is intrinsically time-specific and must reflect conditions at the time the associated enterprises transact. The Commissioner nevertheless treated the relief granted in 2010-11 as a surrogate for proof of services in 2012-13, thereby evading the evidentiary standards

Uil Electronics India Private Limited, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ACIT, DCIT, NFAC, Drp, Civic Center, New Delhi

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

ITA 3712/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

that the assessee is a company and engaged in the manufacturing of mobile accessories. The assessee is exporting the manufacturing products to its Associated Enterprises (AE) only. The assessee is 100% captive unit, which means the assessee does not have any transactions with non-associated enterprises for the year under

Square Dotcom Provate Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 245/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Square Dotcom Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 9Th Floor, Good Earth Business Vs. Circle-24(1), Bay, Sector-58, C.R. Building, Gurgaon, Harayan-122011 New Delhi. Pan-Aaucs8074R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prabhakar Kumar, Ca Department By Shri S. K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm: The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 13Th February, 2021 Having Din No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)2020-21/1030628110(1) & Relates To Asst. Year 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Pointed Out That The Transaction Between Assessee & Its Ae’S Was Out Of The Purview Of International Transaction In As Much As The Assessee Has Only Issued Equity Share To Its Associated Enterprises (Ae), In Lieu Of The Share Capital Received From Ae. It Is The Contention Of The Assessee That This Transaction Does Not Have Any Bearing On The Profits Of The Company And, Therefore, It Is Out Of The Purview Of International Transaction & Hence, No Transfer Pricing Adjustment Can Be Made Qua This Transaction.

purview of international transaction in as much as the assessee has only issued equity share to its associated enterprises (AE), in lieu of the share capital received from AE. It is the contention of the assessee that this transaction does not have any bearing on the profits of the company

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)

transaction value while determining the arm's length price of the Appellant's international transaction of payment of sales commission to its Associated Enterprise ('AE') Portescap S.A., Switzerland, resulting in a transfer pricing adjustment of INR 20,79,23,538/-. While doing so the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. DRP also erred ... against which the responses were filed by the assessee. From the details filed the Ld.AO noted that, the assessee had international transactions with its associated enterprise and accordingly reference was made to the transfer pricing officer to determine the arms length price of the transaction. 3.2. On receipt

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 340/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.340/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) & S.A. No. 15/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix, Apsez, Income Tax, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram Circle-5(1), Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530011. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaaco9452H (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

details. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed that Form 3CEB report of the assessee company had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). Hence, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the international transactions undertaken ... which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non-associated enterprises, under similar circumstances, considering all the relevant facts. The Ld. AR once again reiterated that the Revenue erred in not following the Rule 10AB

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1376/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C(3)

further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO in benchmarking outstanding receivables from Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’) as a separate international transaction, ITA No.1376/Hyd/2024 3 without appreciating that the principal international transactions resulting in such receivables have been found to be at arm’s length ... noticed that the funds raised by the assessee company for giving the loan to India Telecom Holdings Ltd., Mauritius, which is its Associated Enterprises and which is the subsidiary company, is out of the funds of the assessee company. It is not borrowed funds. The assessee has given the loan

M/S. Laxmi Organic Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4782/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate andFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 80I

learned Assessing Officer wholly erred in making addition on account of "Arm's length price in relation to international transactions with associated enterprises" amounting to "Rs 83,66,17,206", whereas, on the facts of this case, no additions in respect of "arm's length price adjustments" could ... which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non- associated enterprises, under similar circumstances, considering all the relevant facts of electricity, which in plan words is market value of the electricity, and, in the light

Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 1488/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kit(Tp)A No.1488/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmaye Rajkumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Officer (“the TPO”) towards IT(TP)A No.1488/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 14 the international transactions for provision of Technical Support Services (“TSS”) to its Associated Enterprises (“AEs”). BRIEF FACTS 1. The Appellant is engaged in provision of marketing support services and technical support services to the EMC Group companies

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Cirlce - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1296/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

agreement between AMAT Inc and AMAT India had submitted that the employees salary were continued to be paid by the overseas entities i.e. the Associated Enterprises (AE). This clearly shows that the original employer was the AE, i.e. M/s Applied Materials Inc USA, the Seconder. 11.9 Law imposes a number ... INDIA, which is evidently only their temporary home. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between the Assessee AMAT India and seconded employees of associated enterprises. 12. There is only a temporary work arrangement due to the specialized knowledge and skill of the seconded employee with the assessee on terms

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

ITA 1295/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Respondent by
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

agreement between AMAT Inc and AMAT India had submitted that the employees salary were continued to be paid by the overseas entities i.e. the Associated Enterprises (AE). This clearly shows that the original employer was the AE, i.e. M/s Applied Materials Inc USA, the Seconder. INCO * Σ 11.9 Law imposes ... INDIA, which is evidently only their temporary home. Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between the Assessee AMAT India and seconded employees of associated enterprises. 12. There is only a temporary work arrangement due to the specialized knowledge and skill of the seconded employee with the assessee on terms