← All Phrases

“safe harbour rules”

Transfer PricingSection 92CBSection 92CB105 judgments

3K TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD 2-(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 62/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15(9)

section 10AA of the Act\nof Rs.12.22 lakhs may not be rejected and its income be estimated at\nthe rates prescribed under the safe harbour rules on the gross receipts.\nHowever, the aforesaid show cause notice (SCN), dated 21/03/2014,\nwas also not acted upon by the assessee company.\n4.\nThe

INCOMETAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. DOOSAN BOBCAT PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of assessee is dismissed as not-pressed

ITA 2288/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2025 & C.O No.76/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita No.2288/Chny/2025) िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Doosan Bobcat Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, Corporate Ward-2(1), Vs. Chennai. No.41, Gst Road, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaccd 6529L

For Respondent: Mr. Praveen.S, JCIT
Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

page 371 of paperbook). • The requirement to exclude extraordinary items for benchmarking and determination of ALP is a well settled law. Even the Safe Harbour Rules allow for exclusion of extra-ordinary items while computing the operating expenses and the same is also provided in the OECD TP Guidelines

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1217/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

both\nAEs and the appellant to provide such financial guarantee.\n1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in\ndisregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states\nthat performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate\nguarantee.\n1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect ... assets or losses of the assessee and the same\nwas of the nature of shareholder activity. It is also submitted\nthat in the Safe Harbour Rules Rule 10TA it is referred as\nunder:\n14\nITA No.1150, 1211, 1149&1217/Mum/2025\n Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014\n\"(c) corporates guarantee

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1211/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

both\nAEs and the appellant to provide such financial guarantee.\n1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in\ndisregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states\nthat performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate\nguarantee.\n1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect ... assets or losses of the assessee and the same\nwas of the nature of shareholder activity. It is also submitted\nthat in the Safe Harbour Rules Rule 10TA it is referred as\nunder:\n14\nITA No.1150, 1211, 1149&1217/Mum/2025\n Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014\n\"(c) corporates guarantee

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1150/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

both AEs and the appellant to provide such financial guarantee. 1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect ... assets or losses of the assessee and the same was of the nature of shareholder activity. It is also submitted that in the Safe Harbour Rules – Rule 10TA it is referred as under: Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 “(c) corporates guarantee means explicit corporate guarantee extended by a company

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

both AEs and the appellant to provide such financial guarantee. 1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect ... assets or losses of the assessee and the same was of the nature of shareholder activity. It is also submitted that in the Safe Harbour Rules – Rule 10TA it is referred as under: Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 “(c) corporates guarantee means explicit corporate guarantee extended by a company

VIRAJ SOLAR MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST WEST FLYOVERMUMBA vs. ITO 8(3)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 5525/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Viraj Solar Maharashtra Private Limited Ito, 8(3)(1), Mumbai 406, Hubtown Solaris, N.S. Phadke Marg, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai, Andheri East West Flyover, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Maharashtra-400069. [Pan:Aadvc 4415 A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144C(13)Section 254(1)Section 270A

ordinary profit The TPO rejected the contentions of the assessee and distinguished the various case laws relied by the assessee, he invoked the Safe Harbour Rules. Accordingly, he proceeded to determine the adjustment of non-payment of interest to VSMPL to the extent of Rs.8,75,508/- by inferring that

AAMIR KHATRI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 3586/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

specific term “operating income”. Therefore we refer to other related Enactments/Rules to decipher the meaning of the aforesaid term. In this regard, the Safe Harbour Rules 10TA (1)(i) defines “operating revenue” in an inclusive manner to mean “the revenue earned by the assessee in the previous year in relation

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2767/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)

appropriate to finally determine the arm's length\ninterest rate ourselves, in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, by\ndrawing guidance from the Safe Harbour Rules, rather than\nrestoring the matter for reconsideration.\n9. 9. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to adopt a fixed\ndefault rate of interest by drawing ... guidance from the OECD\nTransfer Pricing Guidelines, 2017, and the Safe Harbour Rules\nframed under section 92CB read with Rules 10TA to 10TG of the\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962. Even though the assessee has not\nformally exercised the safe harbour option under Rule 10TG, the\nprinciples embodied in section 92CB

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2366/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

appropriate to finally determine the arm's length\ninterest rate ourselves, in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, by\ndrawing guidance from the Safe Harbour Rules, rather than\nrestoring the matter for reconsideration.\n9. 9. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to adopt a fixed\ndefault rate of interest by drawing ... guidance from the OECD\nTransfer Pricing Guidelines, 2017, and the Safe Harbour Rules\nframed under section 92CB read with Rules 10TA to 10TG of the\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962. Even though the assessee has not\nformally exercised the safe harbour option under Rule 10TG, the\nprinciples embodied in section 92CB

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

ITA 2365/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)

appropriate to finally determine the arm’s length interest rate ourselves, in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, by drawing guidance from the Safe Harbour Rules, rather than restoring the matter for reconsideration. 9.9. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to adopt a fixed default rate of interest by drawing guidance ... from the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2017, and the Safe Harbour Rules framed under section 92CB read with Rules 10TA to 10TG of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Even though the assessee has not formally exercised the safe harbour option under Rule 10TG, the principles embodied in section 92CB read

CINEPOLIS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 829/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Ms. Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd., Additional / Joint/ Deputy / 10Th Floor, Dlf Two Horizon Assistant Deputy Centre, Dlf V, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gold Course Road, Income Tax Officer, Gurugram-122002, National E-Assessment Haryana, India. Centre, Delhi. Pan- Aadcc2076J Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92C

CCDs were secured. (refer page 44 of the appeal set/internal page 12 of the TPO order) 7. The Ld. TPO placed reliance on safe harbour rules inserted in the rules vide notification no. 73/2013 dated September 18, 2013 to justify the adoption of SBI base rate for benchmarking of interest ... Indian currency to be bench marked by applying PLR rates. 4.4. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Revenue’s reliance on safe harbour rules was erroneous as these are applicable to an assessee only if it applies for the same. Even otherwise, SBI base rate being 9.7%, further

MATRIX CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT-CC-18, DELHI

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

ITA 3805/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmatrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv Shri Akash Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

arriving at the ALP with reference to corporate guarantee. In fact, it is only on that basis, the assessee had relied on safe harbour rule on without prejudice basis vide Ground No. 2.5 as per which the corporate guarantee commission was prescribed at the rate of 1%. In the instant ... case, the assessee had not opted for Safe Harbour Rules. Further, we find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited reported in 398 ITR 439 (Bom) had held that for computing ALP of guarantee commission, comparison cannot be ITA No. 3805/Del/2024 Matrix

MATRIX CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

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

ITA 760/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmatrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv Shri Akash Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

arriving at the ALP with reference to corporate guarantee. In fact, it is only on that basis, the assessee had relied on safe harbour rule on without prejudice basis vide Ground No. 2.5 as per which the corporate guarantee commission was prescribed at the rate of 1%. In the instant ... case, the assessee had not opted for Safe Harbour Rules. Further, we find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited reported in 398 ITR 439 (Bom) had held that for computing ALP of guarantee commission, comparison cannot be ITA No. 3805/Del/2024 Matrix

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

that, the similar treatment should be done for comparable companies as well. Learned Counsel for the Assessee argued that, the assessee referred to Safe Harbour Rules and Rule 10TA(j), which exclude forex loss from operating expenses. In support of this contention, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied

OXBOW ENERGY SOLUTIONS B.V.,THANE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4769/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ms. JasminFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

operation of LO i.e. gathering of information and sending reports to parent company, is covered under "Business Analytics and Market Research" and hence safe harbour rules prescribed for the said activity can be used to estimate the profit attributable to the 6 Oxbow Energy solutions B.V. PE using Rule

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8260/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra and AnkurFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

EXPENSE 3 6. The learned AO/TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in law by disregarding the definition of operating expenses as provided under the Safe Harbour Rules and considering interest expense as operating in nature. 7. Without prejudice to ground of appeal No. 6 above, the Hon'ble DRP further erred ... routine business operation of the appellant. For this reliance can be placed upon the following: i) Definition of operating expense as provided in Safe Harbour Rules (Rule 10TA of Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules")) (Refer para (j) page 18-19 of the convenience paper book); ii) Organization

NEOVANTAGE BIO-TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 924/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

that this Tribunal has adopted a consolidated rate of 12.275% for interest and redemption premium of NCDs including grossing up of TDS, considering safe harbour rules and section 194LD of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the same and applying the principle of consistency, we direct the Ld. TPO to benchmark

NEOVANTAGE INNOVATION PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

that this Tribunal has adopted a consolidated rate of 12.275% for interest and redemption premium of NCDs including grossing up of TDS, considering safe harbour rules and section 194LD of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the same and applying the principle of consistency, we direct the Ld. TPO to benchmark

AVAADA SATARAMH PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR,UP vs. ITO 5(1)(1) G BUDH NAGAR, NOIDA, UP

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4916/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

ordinary profit The TPO rejected the contentions of the assessee and distinguished the various case laws relied by the assessee, he invoked the Safe Harbour Rules. Accordingly, he proceeded to determine the adjustment of non-payment of interest to VSMPL to the extent of Rs.8,75,508/- by inferring that

Showing 1–20 of 105 · Page 1 of 6