← 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

Trumpf (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1448/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1448/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Trumpf (India) Private Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Raisoni Industrial Park, S. Ward-14(5), Pune. S.No.276, Hissa No.1, Village Mann, Taluka – Mulshi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacct8008J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abdulkadir Jawadwala– Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-12, Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2025 For A.Y.2010-11, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 03.11.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 271

case in rejecting Ma Foi Global Search Services Limited and Ma Foi Management Consultants Limited as comparable companies. 4. Incorrect calculation of transfer pricing adjustment: The learned DCIT erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in calculating incorrect transfer pricing adjustment. 5. Erroneous addition

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is general in nature, therefore doesn't require any adjudication. 5. Ground No.2 relates to the transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of corporate guarantee(s) issued by the assessee to its foreign AE(s). The facts as noted are that, the assessee ... assessee didn't charge any fee towards such corporate guarantees issued in favour of the AEs. The TPO is noted to have made transfer pricing adjustment in relation thereto, by adopting the ALP value at 1% of the value of corporate guarantee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

Edwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6188/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailedwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor Commerz – Ii, International Business Park Oberoi Garden City, Goregaon (East), Off Western Express Highway Goregaon (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aaacb4203F V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai - 400012 Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah Ms. Riddhi Maru Ms. Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92B

assessment year 2021-22. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 2 “Grounds pertaining to Transfer Pricing adjustments: General Ground: 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Assessment Order passed in pursuance to the directions issued ... assessee. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. The issue arising in Ground No.2, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of advertisement, marketing and sale promotion (“AMP”) expenses incurred by the assessee. 6. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this