← 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

Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited, Bnagalore vs. DCIT- Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1891/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavit(Tp)A No.1891/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Sez Unit Kadubeesanahalli Village, Of Income Tax, Bellandur S.O. Kadabeesanahalli, Circle – 2(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcc 0258 Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Divya K. J, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 234A

Assessing Officer) of the assessee at Rs.1344,16,04,290/- against the returned income of Rs.1192,60,35,990/-. In this assessment, the transfer pricing adjustment was retained of Rs.53,40,15,927/- after the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (learned DRP), Bangalore, dated 18.06.2024. 2. Assessee ... compliance with bilateral advanced pricing agreement and on 29.04.2024 in compliance to unilateral advanced pricing agreement. Therefore, it was submitted that the transfer pricing adjustments cannot survive. Copies of APA and Modified returns are submitted in the paper book. 4. On these grounds, the learned CIT(DR) also agreed that

ACIT., Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 710/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.710/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Vs. Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabca7366H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 24.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri B.G. Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

final order. Accordingly, the final assessment order was passed on 26.02.2024 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, incorporating the transfer pricing adjustments suggested by the Ld. TPO. 4. Aggrieved by the additions made by Ld. AO in the final assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal ... sale of goods or services rendered in the course of carrying on the business, it is liable to be visited with the transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income short charged/uncharged. It is, therefore, not open for the assessee to agitate this question as to whether the interest

Ambattur Clothing Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1957/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1957/Chny/2017 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ambattur Clothing Ltd [Now Demerged & Known As M/S. Ambattur Fashion India Pvt. Ltd.] No.86/E-2, Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai– 600 058. (Pan:Aaaca-4127-D) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Sp Chidambaram, Advocate. Mr. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. 09.07.2025 31.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 21.06.2017 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1) For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed In Compliance To Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (Drp) Vide Order Dated 11.05.2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Readymade Garments To Ae & Non- Ae'S. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Υ.2013-14 On 30.11.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.11,57,20,670/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. A :-2-:

Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,‘□□' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं