“economic adjustment”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C88 judgments

The decision most relied on for economic adjustment is CIT v. Petro Araldite (P.) Ltd. (256 Taxmann 16), cited in 15 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on economic adjustment

CIT v. Petro Araldite (P.) Ltd.

256 Taxmann 16 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Economic adjustments relating to capacity utilization and foreign exchange should be granted to the assessee when computing its margin under the TNMM.

Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

77 Taxmann.com 48 · 2017 · Reported

citing judgments

This case does not lay down a clear proposition of law based on the provided excerpts. The passages focus on listing other cases and describing the business of a company rather than stating a legal holding.

Judgments citing economic adjustment

Volkswagen Group Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Assessment Unit Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1950/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Volkswagen Group Technology V National Faceless Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., S Assessment Center, Embassy Techzone, 9Th Floor, Assessment Unit, Delhi. 1.3 Congo Building, Rajiv Gandhi, Infotech Park, Infotech Park Hinjavadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafcv1368L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO / Ld. DRP has erred in not granting economic adjustments for differences in the level of risks assumed and differences in the functional profile in terms of marketing functions between the comparables companies

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)

Appellant in good faith and with due diligence, and b) Disregarding the benchmarking approach adopted by the Appellant c) Disregarding/not accepting the economic adjustments carried out by the Appellant on account of the projections used, inventory adjustment and costs incurred due to the start-up phase. d) Not granting working ... only 30%. The assessee benchmarked the manufacturing segment by adopting Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method and after conducting certain economic adjustments as per Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, it was contended that the transaction is at arm’s length

Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra(Ita No. 4348/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Louis Vuitton India Vs. Dcit Retail Private Limited Circle-1(1) 901-A, 9Th Floor, Time Gurgaon, Tower, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacl8230E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 253(1)Section 928Section 92D

functionally dissimilar as compared to the functional profile of the Appellant, 3 Louis Vuitton India Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 3.5. disregarding various economic adjustments under Rule 10B(1) (e) (iii) and Rule 10B(3) of the Rules to account in determining the arm's length profit margin

Milacron India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2201/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Milacron India Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Plot No.93/2 & 91/4 Vs Ahmedabad. Phase-1,Gidc Vatva, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcc 0881 D

For Appellant: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92C

range of the working capital adjusted margins of the comparables, which lies between 5.23% and 7.33%. Once the tested party's margin, post appropriate economic adjustments, lies comfortably within or above the arm’s length range established by the comparables, the international transaction is to be regarded as being

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5918/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92D

application of filter for related party transactions. 2:10 The AO/ TPO/ CIT (A) erred in disregarding the contention of the Appellant to undertake economic adjustments for working capital and market risk. 2:11 The AO/ TPO / CIT (A) have erred in rejecting following comparable companies considered by the Appellant ... application of filter for related party transactions. 3:10 The AO/ TPO/ CIT (A) erred in disregarding the contention of the Appellant to undertake economic adjustments for working capital and market risk. 3:11 The AO/ TPO / CIT (A) have erred in rejecting following comparable companies considered by the Appellant

International Seaport Dredging Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 72/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.72/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.35/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.87/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. International Seaport Dredging Dcit / Jcit(Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-2(2) बनाम 5Th Floor, Challam Towers, Chennai. Old No.62, New No.113, / Vs. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabci-2286-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A.Sasi Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: These Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Separate Orders Of Assessments Framed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasi Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

limited to, applying filters, functional analysis selection of comparable companies, computation of profit margin of Appellant and comparable companies and undertaking economic adjustment. 2.2. The lower authorities have erred in disregarding the FAR analysis submitted by the Appellant and erroneously characterized the Appellant's transaction as a high- end service