← All Phrases

“benchmarking analysis”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C560 judgments

The decision most relied on for benchmarking analysis is DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (38 SOT 307), cited in 179 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on benchmarking analysis

DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.
38 SOT 307 · 2010 · ITAT
179
citing judgments

An assessee is not estopped or precluded from seeking the exclusion of a company from its Transfer Pricing study comparables, even if initially selected, if it can demonstrate valid reasons for non-comparability.

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.

Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
107 ITD 141 · 2007 · ITAT
90
citing judgments

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines can be referred to for resolving transfer pricing disputes in India, even though India is not an OECD member, provided they are consistent with Indian statutory regulations. Availability of exemption under Section 10A does not bar the applicability of Section 92C and 92CA.

UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT
121 ITD 131 · 2009 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, distinct international transactions, such as royalty payments and manufacturing, should be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated. The selection of comparables must be based on a thorough Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis, and loss-making entities are not automatically excluded if they satisfy other comparability criteria.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT
68 Taxmann.com 322 · 2016 · High Court
55
citing judgments

When benchmarking export transactions, the Associated Enterprise (AE) can be considered the tested party if it possesses the least complex functional analysis. The Assessing Officer's acceptance of a methodology in prior years can also support its use.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd.
389 ITR 70 · 2016 · High Court
48
citing judgments

Ad-hoc transfer pricing adjustments are not justified if the Transfer Pricing Officer fails to apply one of the prescribed methods under Section 92C. The arm's length nature of international transactions, including intra-group services and management fees, should be determined through a detailed FAR analysis and benchmarking study.

Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
13 Taxmann.com 82 · 2011 · High Court
43
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot disregard an assessee's decision to avail services from associated enterprises, even if the assessee has internal expertise, as the determination of necessity is the assessee's prerogative. The Transfer Pricing Officer's role is to determine the arm's length price, not the need for the service itself.

Judgments citing benchmarking analysis

Precision Camshafts Ltd., Solapur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (NFAC), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Precision Camshafts Ltd., V Assessment Unit, Income Tax E-102/103, Akkalkot Road, S Department (National Midc, Solapur – 413006. Faceless Assessment Center), Maharashtra. Jurisdiction Details : Pne- C(1), Range 63, Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 25.07.2024, Emanating From Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act For A.Y.2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 92(3)Section 928Section 92C

specific provisions in Rule 108. whether the Ld. TPO/AO is correct in arriving at the ad-hoc rate of 0.50%, without conducting any benchmarking analysis prescribed in Section 92C which is violation of law? Whether the rate of guarantee commission determined in the judgement can be adopted as a valid

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Ms.Phillips Foods India Private Limited, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 739/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 739/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 & C.O No.17/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No.739/Chny/2024] The Assistant Phillips Foods India Pvt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Tax, C-75/76, Sipcot Industrial Circle 1, Complex, Tirunelveli Tuticorin Central Stand S.O. Tuticorin – 628 002. Pan: Aabcp 7916Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. K. Amulya, Ca & Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92C

determined by the TPO by adopting the assessee’s foreign AE as the tested party, upon rejecting the assessee’s TP documentational and benchmarking analysis. - 3 - ITA No,739/CHNY/2024 & CO No.17/CHNY/2024 3. Subsequently, the AO passed draft assessment order on 28.11.2019 u/s.144C(1) of the Act and the final assessment