← 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

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

144B was passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) on 28.06.2021, making an addition of Rs.2,26,82,071/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 4. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act and issued notice to the assessee on 08.03.2024. The Ld. PCIT

Invesco (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1320/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1320/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Invesco (India) (P) Ltd Vs. Hyderabad Dy.Cit Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Respondent) Pan:Aacch8216L (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Cas Shri K.C.Devdas, Kranthi Pallivelu & Mrudulatha राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Invesco (India) (P) Ltd, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Pass By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao") U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act (“ The Act”), Dated 29.10.2024 For The A.Y 2021-22.

For Appellant: CAs Shri K.C.Devdas, KranthiFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

action of the Ld. TPO in:- 11.1 In considering trade receivables from AE as a separate international transaction and further erred in proposing transfer pricing adjustment in the nature of interest on receivables amounting to INR 36,28,335 /- 11.2 Not appreciating that the instant transaction is not covered ... erred, and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in : a) Making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.13,46,40,000/- being interest on compulsorily convertible debentures (CCDs) b) Re-characterizing the CCDs as foreign loan for benchmarking the international transaction