← All Phrases

“transfer pricing adjustment”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C2,153 judgments

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

Leading authorities on transfer pricing adjustment

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.

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.

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.

Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT
381 ITR 154 · 2016 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure incurred by an Indian entity directly benefits its own business and cannot be automatically treated as an international transaction for global brand building by associated enterprises without specific statutory provisions or proper analysis.

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.

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.

Judgments citing transfer pricing adjustment

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 2403/DEL/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Vs. Omaxe Limited, Gurugram. 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshat Jain, Ca Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Garima Mathur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi-44 Dated 13.02.2025 For Ay 2014-15 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(I) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.5,22,08,123/- In Respect Of The Profits From Housing Project Which Are Group Housing Scheme Of Multi-Storied Flats In The Projects Namely M/S Royal Residency, Ludhiana? (Ii) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Following The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) - 19 For The Ay 2011-12 Wherein It Was Held That The Aforesaid Group Housing Scheme Is Separately Satisfying The Conditions Laid Down In The Provisions Of 2 Section 80Ib(10) Despite Observing That The Consolidated Approval Of The Local Authority Is For The Entire Project? (Iii) Whether The Decision Of Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Suffer From The Vice Of Perversity? (Iv) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Determining The Credit Spread At 500 Basis Points, Relying Upon The Guidelines Issued By Reserve Bank Of India For External Commercial Borrowing? (V) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Judgment Of Hon'Ble High Court?”

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Mathur, Sr. DR
Section 80I

which was disallowed. In addition to this, deduction of Rs. 7,78,24,252/- was made on account of transfer pricing adjustment. The CIT(A) vide his order dated 17.09.2015, allowed relief u/s 80IB to the extent of Rs. 4,42,27,627/-. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB

Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions Ag, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. J.Amalsadwala,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)
Section 271GSection 273BSection 92DSection 92D(1)Section 92D(3)

information and documents under Section 92D (3) of the Act read with Rule 10D. The TPO thereafter passed Transfer Pricing order determining a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 49,86,862/-.Thereafter, penalty notice u/s 271G was issued andpenalty imposing penalty of Rs. 22,31,295/- was passed ... form of sample invoices, agreements etc., which were submitted by it on 26.03.2019.The TPO thereafter passed the TP order dated 20.06.2019 determining transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 49,86,862/-. P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2016-17 Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG 4.1 It is submitted that despite providing detailed

Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana, India vs. The Deputy Or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana, India

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per the directions given to AO/TPO above

ITA 4439/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Vs Dcit, 16Th Floor, Building No.5, Circle-1(1), Block-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram. Phase Iii, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aapca2671M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate; Ms Reema Grewal, Ca; & Ms Snigdha Gautam, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ld. Ao’) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. The Assessee Is Part Of The Multinational Group, Arabian Trading Group Which Is Based Out Of Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia & Is Engaged In Generating, Developing, Accumulating, Distributing & Supplying Electricity By Setting Renewable Energy Power Plants. This Is The First Year Of The Assessment Of The Assessee. During The Year, The Assessee Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions:- International Transactions Transfer Pricing Method Total Value Of International Transactions (In Inr) Issue Of Compulsorily Other Method 2,44,77,26,400 Convertible Debentures (Ccds) Interest On Ccds Comparable Uncontrolled 46,52,90,098 Price (Cup) Method Issue Of Equity Shares Other Method 45,04,31,700

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

holding the interest charged on CCD issue by the assessee as international transaction and subsequent ground No.4 to 11 are with regard to transfer pricing adjustments proposed on this alleged international transaction relating to payment of interest on CCDs. 4. Now with regard to these ground numbers ... held that no interest payment was called for. That is how he determined the ALP of the transaction at Nil and proposed transfer pricing adjustments. The CIT(A) had deleted the same and directed TPO to verify certain facts regarding the ALP determination of the interest on the debentures/CCDs