← 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

Square Dotcom Provate Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 245/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Square Dotcom Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 9Th Floor, Good Earth Business Vs. Circle-24(1), Bay, Sector-58, C.R. Building, Gurgaon, Harayan-122011 New Delhi. Pan-Aaucs8074R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prabhakar Kumar, Ca Department By Shri S. K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm: The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 13Th February, 2021 Having Din No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)2020-21/1030628110(1) & Relates To Asst. Year 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Pointed Out That The Transaction Between Assessee & Its Ae’S Was Out Of The Purview Of International Transaction In As Much As The Assessee Has Only Issued Equity Share To Its Associated Enterprises (Ae), In Lieu Of The Share Capital Received From Ae. It Is The Contention Of The Assessee That This Transaction Does Not Have Any Bearing On The Profits Of The Company And, Therefore, It Is Out Of The Purview Of International Transaction & Hence, No Transfer Pricing Adjustment Can Be Made Qua This Transaction.

have any bearing on the profits of the company and, therefore, it is out of the purview of international transaction and hence, no transfer pricing adjustment can be made qua this transaction. 3. Per contra, Ld. CR relied pointed out that this plea of the assessee is completely new plea

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Gropup Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

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

ITA 581/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 581/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Tbea Shenyang Deputy Commissioner Of Transformer Group Income Tax Vs. Company Limited International Taxation, National Highway No.-8, Vadodara Villae : Miyagam, Karja, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct4557F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Arpit Jain, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit. Dr 24/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 O R D E R Per Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9Section 92C

rests with the AO and the TPO exceeded his jurisdiction in carrying out exercise of attribution of profit to Indian PE. Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 29,50,86, 132 made by the TPO essentially represents additional profit attributable to Indian PE and therefore the TPO and consequently ... rests with the AO and the TPO exceeded his jurisdiction in carrying out exercise of attribution of profit to Indian PE. Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 29,50,86, 132 made by the TPO essentially represents additional profit attributable to Indian PE and therefore the TPO and consequently