← All Phrases

“international transaction”

Transfer PricingSection 92BSection 92B3,408 judgments

The decision most relied on for international transaction is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (374 ITR 118), cited in 499 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on international transaction

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court
499
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

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.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

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.

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
368 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
172
citing judgments

The issue of shares and share premium is a capital account transaction, not an income-generating event, therefore Chapter X (Transfer Pricing) provisions are not attracted to deem notional or hypothetical income from such transactions.

Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT
24 ITR 506 · 1953 · Supreme Court
156
citing judgments

One cannot make a taxable profit or loss from transactions with oneself, as profit only arises from dealings with external third parties, even when transferring assets between different accounts or divisions of the same entity.

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.

Judgments citing international transaction

Mwh India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1891/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 1891/मुं/2014 ("न. व. 2009-10 ) Mwh India Pvt. Ltd. 168, Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Goregaon(E) Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Aaaca-4613-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 9(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D.Mistri With Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj Sheth ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistri with Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 50BSection 92C

environmental engineering, software 2 development, consultancy and management services. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee entered into various international transactions with its Associated Enterprise (AE) including provision of engineering design services and management services. Apart from above, the assessee also entered into slump sale ... have erred in treating transaction of slump sale entered into by the assessee with MWH Resources Net (India) Pvt. Ltd. as international transaction. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the asset purchase agreement was entered into between two India resident companies incorporated in India, therefore, the 4 provisions

DCIT (It) -4(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Techware Singapre Holdings Pte. Ltd, Singapore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1930/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1930/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit(It) –4(1) (2) M/S Techware Singapre Mumbai Holdings Pte. Ltd. Room No.1609, 16Th Floor, C/O Delotte Haskins 7 Air India Bldg, Nariman Sells Llp C.A’S India बिधम/ Point, Maharashtra, Bulls Finance Centre, Vs. 400021 Tower-3 ,32Nd Floor Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road(West), Mumbai Maharashtra,-400013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aafct5409E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Manoj Sinha, Sr.Ar अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 03/03/2022, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-68, Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271G For The Ay 2016 - 17. 2

For Respondent: None
Section 271GSection 5Section 92CSection 92D(3)Section 92E

3CEB on 30 November 2016, in accordance with Section 92E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), reporting the particulars of its international transaction. The address of the assessee disclosed in the form No. 3CEB was registered office at Singapore. 2. In the course of Assessment Proceedings, a reference ... 92CA (1) of the Act was made to the TPO for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in relation to international transaction entered into by the Assessee. As culled out from the records, no TP 3 I.T.A. No. 1838/mum/2022 Shrinivas Vijay Tandale adjustment was proposed

Technimont Spa India Project Office, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.691/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Tecnimont Spa India बिधम/ Additional Director Of Office Income Tax-(It)-Range-2 Vs. Tecnimont Icb House, 1St Floor, R. No. 108, Chincholi Bunder, 504 Link Scindia House, Ballard Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Estate, N. M. Road, 400064. Mumbai-400038. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact8224A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri Pranav Gandhi Revenue By: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “Ao”) Dated 30.11.2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Only Issue Is Regarding The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Ao Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Is A Foreign Company Incorporated At Milan, Italy & It Has A Project Office In India Which Is The Permanent Establishment (Pe). According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Has Been Awarded A Project By M/S. Indian Oil Corporation (Hereinafter “M/S. Iocl”) At Panipat Project. The Assessee In Turn Has Awarded The Same Project To Two (2) Of Its Associated Enterprises/Ae’S

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri PranavFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92B

work carried out by the AE’s, they were remunerated by the assessee which according to the TPO was excessive. The TPO noted the International transactions entered by the PE/Assessee with TICB and EDTICB during the year as under: - S. No. Particulars of Transactions Name of the AE Amount ... study determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions between the PE with TICB and EDTICB which come within the ambit of International transaction as defined u/s 92B of the Act, the assessee failed to produce the same. Therefore, he proceeded to benchmarking the international transactions

Hp Pps Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 278/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 278/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Hp Pps Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 24, Salarpuria Commissioner Of Arena, Income Tax, Hosur Main Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Adugodi, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aadch5825N Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Appellant Submits That: I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp')

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand

issued to assessee. In response to the notices, assessee filed the relevant details as called for. The Ld.AO observed that assessee had entered into international transactions exceeding Rs. 15 crores. Accordingly, the case was referred to the transfer pricing officer. 2.3 On reference received by the Ld.TPO under 92CA ... Ld.TPO called upon assessee to furnish the economic details of the international transaction in form 3CEB. From the details filed, the Ld.TPO observed that following the international transaction entered into by assessee. 2.4 The Ld.TPO observed that the following were the segmental break-up of incremental revenue and corresponding cost

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2732/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

provisions of the Act read with the Rules, conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination of the ALP in connection with the impugned international transaction and holding that the Appellant's international transaction is not at arm's length. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred ... During Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee company has declared receipts of Rs.214,51,73,919/- from its operations. 2.4 As the value of international transaction exceeded Rs.15 crores, a reference was made to the Ld.TPO. On receipt of the Page 6 of 35 ITA Nos. 2611 & 2732/Bang/2018 reference

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2611/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

provisions of the Act read with the Rules, conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination of the ALP in connection with the impugned international transaction and holding that the Appellant's international transaction is not at arm's length. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred ... During Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee company has declared receipts of Rs.214,51,73,919/- from its operations. 2.4 As the value of international transaction exceeded Rs.15 crores, a reference was made to the Ld.TPO. On receipt of the Page 6 of 35 ITA Nos. 2611 & 2732/Bang/2018 reference

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2068/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Herbalife International India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 250Section 253

total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price with respect to the international transactions of the Appellant. International transaction relating to Export of Finished Goods to Associated Enterprise VAE") 2. Erred in making an upward TP adjustment ... international transaction of Export of Finished goods to AE. 3. Erred in not considering various submissions, workings and evidences furnished by the Appellant to justify the commercial expediency behind export of goods. 4. Erred in considering the net realizable value of local sales as arm's length price for testing

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2067/BANG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Herbalife International India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 250Section 253

total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price with respect to the international transactions of the Appellant. International transaction relating to Export of Finished Goods to Associated Enterprise VAE") 2. Erred in making an upward TP adjustment ... international transaction of Export of Finished goods to AE. 3. Erred in not considering various submissions, workings and evidences furnished by the Appellant to justify the commercial expediency behind export of goods. 4. Erred in considering the net realizable value of local sales as arm's length price for testing

Asst. Comm. of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400022

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross-

ITA 1283/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Exxon Mobile Company Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Aayakar Road No. 8, Sion (East), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 113/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1283/Mum/2022) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Exxon Mobile Company Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, Road Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 8, Sion (East), 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Mumbai-400020. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. A/W Mr. Dhiraj Jain Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR
Section 195Section 40

price of Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm’s length price of Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm’s length price of international transaction carried out by the assessee. One of the international transaction carried out by the assessee. One of the international transaction carried

M/S. Dell International Services India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Computer India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 392/BANG/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Dell International Services The Deputy Commissioner Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Dell Circle – 2(1)(1), Computer India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. 12/1A, 12/2A, 13/1A, Diyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaach 1925 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021, Passed By The Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Is The Subsidiary Of Dell International Usa & Is Engaged In The Provision Of Call Centre Support Services, Back-Office Support Services & Offshore Development Support Services [Software Development (“Swd”)] To Its Associated Enterprises (“Aes”). The Assessee Provided The Aforesaid Services To It(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 12

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Assessment Year 2004-05, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) vide order dated 15.12.2006 passed u/s.92CA of the Act, determined ALP of the aforesaid 3 international transactions and consequently additions were made to the total income by way of transfer pricing adjustment towards the call centre support services, back-office support ... back-office support services rendered by the assessee for which the assessee received payments from its AE. In so far as the international transactions of rendering back-office support services is concerned, the assessee as well as the TPO chose Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method

M/S Opto Circuits India Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputty Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1315/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.1315/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Opto Circuits India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.38, Electronic City Road Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2) V. Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Pan : Aaaco2165P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, Itp Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. There Is A Delay Of 171 Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit Of Managing Director Of The Assessee, Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated, We Find That The Assessee By Mistake Had Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) (As Against The Final Assessment Order) & On Realizing The Mistake, Immediately The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Tribunal. We Find There Is A Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing

For Appellant: Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had international transactions with its Associate Enterprises (AEs) exceeding Rs.15 crore. Hence, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine