← 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

J P Morgan Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6563/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalj P Morgan Services India Private Limited Tower A Blk 9, Tower B Blk 10, Tower C Blk 11, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai Suburban, ............... Appellant 400063. Pan : Aabcd0503B V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), ……………… Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Revenue By : Ms. Neena Jeph, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92D

letter dated 12.08.2025 filed by the assessee seeking withdrawal of the grounds no. 5 - 13, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertaining to transfer pricing adjustment in view of the Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) entered with the CBDT, which also covers the year under consideration. In the afore-noted letter ... Provision of IT Support Services and ITeS, it wishes to suo-moto withdraw grounds no. 5 - 13 pertaining to the transfer pricing adjustment. Accordingly, in view of the above, grounds no. 5 - 13 raised in assessee’s appeal are dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Ground no.14, raised in assessee’s appeal

Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp., Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3563/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3563/Mum/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2737/Mum/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Irp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant M/S. Rolta India Ltd. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, dated 14.06.2024, whereby certain TP adjustments and corporate tax disallowances were made. 6. With the aforesaid Transfer Pricing Adjustments and disallowances, the return of income of the assessee has been enhanced to the assessed total income of Rs.7272,27,73,320/-. M/s. Rolta India

Rolta India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2737/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3563/Mum/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2737/Mum/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Irp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant M/S. Rolta India Ltd. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, dated 14.06.2024, whereby certain TP adjustments and corporate tax disallowances were made. 6. With the aforesaid Transfer Pricing Adjustments and disallowances, the return of income of the assessee has been enhanced to the assessed total income of Rs.7272,27,73,320/-. M/s. Rolta India

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

substituting the ALP for the price of thetransaction. To begin with there has to be an international transaction with acertain disclosed price. The transfer pricing adjustment envisages thesubstitution of the price of such international transaction with the ALP. 54.Under Sections 92B to 92F, the pre-requisite for commencing ... following the aforesaid decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case, we delete the addition made by theAssessing Officer towards transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMPexpenditure. Ground raised is allowed. 24. Therefore, respectfully following theabove decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case in turn

Rubicon Research Limited (Formerly Known As Rubicon Research Private Limited), Thane, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6647/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri. Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Support Services was INR 4,97,97,048. The TPO proceeded to accept only 50% of these transaction values, thereby proposing an adhoc transfer pricing adjustment of INR 5,06,96,789, solely on the basis of a subjective evaluation. 5. This approach is not only in violation of Rule ... Exports Limited (ITA 4301/Mum/2024) while relying on Jurisdictional Bombay HC decision of Merck Ltd. [2016] 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bombay) categorically held that adhoc transfer pricing adjustments unsupported by any of the prescribed methods u/s 92C of the Act are legally unsustainable. (Page 47 of the case law compendium, Para