← All Phrases

“safe harbour”

Chapter X - Transfer Pricing / Anti-AvoidanceSection 92CBSection 92CB / Rule 10TIA, 10TIB, 10TIC182 judgments

The decision most relied on for safe harbour is Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) (123 Taxmann.com 252), cited in 65 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on safe harbour

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)
123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT
65
citing judgments

The amendment introducing a tolerance band (safe harbour) under section 50C, allowing a difference of up to 10% between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, applies retrospectively. If the difference falls within this limit, the actual sale consideration is adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains.

Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
77 Taxmann.com 48 · 2017 · Reported
10
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 safe harbour

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Santosh Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Santosh Promoters Private O/O The Dcit, Cc-1(1), Limited Room No.305, 3Rd Floor, 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Gariahat, Kolkata-700029 Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs7546M Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Lakra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 50C

between the estimated value and the declared value was less than 5% of the declared value. As appellant in its submissions had claimed that safe harbour rule of 5%, as per the 3 rd proviso to section 50C, would be applicable in its case in view of several judicial pronouncements ... appellant'scase, the difference between the estimated value and the declared value does not exceed 5% of the declared value, assessee is entitled for safe harbour rule of 5% as per 3 rd proviso to section 50C, as held in various judicial decisions, as mentioned in the preceding paras. Coming

Vermeiren India Rehab Private Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

stating that, the similar treatment should be done for comparable companies as well. Learned Counsel for the Assessee argued that, the assessee referred to Safe Harbour Rules and Rule 10TA(j), which exclude forex loss from operating expenses. In support of this contention, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied

Oxbow Energy Solutions B.V., Thane vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4769/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ms. JasminFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

operation of LO i.e. gathering of information and sending reports to parent company, is covered under "Business Analytics and Market Research" and hence safe harbour rules prescribed for the said activity can be used to estimate the profit attributable to the 6 Oxbow Energy solutions B.V. PE using Rule

Sunita Pandey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3567/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

that admittedly, the differential amount between the stamp duty value and consideration shown by assessee is not more than 10% the "leverage granted" or "safe harbour" tolerance limit for the variation between the actual purchase value (sale consideration) and the official stamp duty valuation (circle rate) of a property

Vastu Nirman, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 4491/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43C

assessment for taking the benefit of the same. The ld. AR relied on a catena of decisions wherein it was held that the safe harbour of 10% tolerance bond was to benefit the assessee in case their difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration was within that ... said Section permits variation within 10% limit being the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value as per the safe harbour limit. This proposition has been reiterated by the various decisions in support of the assessee’s contention and even more the amendment to the said provision

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai vs. Amardeep Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 3202/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Central Circle -1(3), Mumbai Amardeep Constructions Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha 7/08, Patidar Complex, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Kannamwar Nagar No. 2, Near 400020 Vikas High School Vikhroli East, Mumbai 400083 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaufa3513A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa Nanda /Revenue By: Shri. Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR)
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 13. In argument related to Section 43CA of the Act the Ld. AR stated that though the safe harbour limit was increased 10% in Finance Act, 2020with effect from 1-4-2021, i.e., AY 2021-22. The tolerance limit of 10% is retrospectively ... that although as per the Act, the tolerance limit has been taken at 5% w.e.f. 1-4-2019 only and further increase in the safe harbour limit from 5% to 10%, is with effect from 1-4-2021, i.e., AY 2021-22, the various Hon’ble courts have held that

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8260/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra and AnkurFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

OPERATING EXPENSE 3 6. The learned AO/TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in law by disregarding the definition of operating expenses as provided under the Safe Harbour Rules and considering interest expense as operating in nature. 7. Without prejudice to ground of appeal No. 6 above, the Hon'ble DRP further ... routine business operation of the appellant. For this reliance can be placed upon the following: i) Definition of operating expense as provided in Safe Harbour Rules (Rule 10TA of Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules")) (Refer para (j) page 18-19 of the convenience paper book); ii) Organization

Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai vs. Gaurav Investments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

For Appellant: Shri Kshitiji Kasi ViswanathFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43C

Government, even though the initial tolerance band level was taken at 5%, in response to the representations by the stakeholders, this tolerance band, or safe harbour provision, was increased to 10%. There is no particular reason to justify any particular time frame for implementing this enhancement of tolerance band ... safe harbour provision. The reasons assigned by the CBDT, i.e., "the variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration received can occur in respect of similar properties in the same area because of a variety of factors, including the shape of the plot or location," was as much valid

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

ITA 4421/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 250Section 43CSection 66Section 68Section 69C

Government, even though the initial tolerance band level was taken at 5%, in response to the representations by the stakeholders, this tolerance band, or safe harbour provision, was increased to 10%. There is no particular reason to justify any particular time frame for implementing this enhancement of tolerance band ... safe harbour provision. The reasons assigned by the CBDT, i.e., "the variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration received can occur in respect of similar properties in the same area because of a variety of factors, including the shape of the plot or location," was as much valid

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Subhash Road Dehadun vs. M/S Times Square, Sahastradhara Road

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 42/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 69A

assessee. 22. In view of these facts, and we find no infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the safe harbour limits as provided in section 43CA has allowed the partial relief to the assessee and accordingly the same is hereby upheld. Ground of appeal No.4

Neovantage Bio-Technology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 924/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

permissible. In their second contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the credit rating of the assessee was BB–, and therefore under Rule 10TD, safe harbour rate of SBI lending rate + 475 basis points should be applied. It was also submitted that grossing up of TDS should not be considered ... second contention, the Ld. AR has submitted that the credit rating of the assessee was BB–, and therefore under Rule 10TD, safe harbour rate of SBI lending rate + 475 basis points should be applied. It is also prayed before the bench that the grossing up of TDS should

Neovantage Innovation Park Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 16(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

permissible. In their second contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the credit rating of the assessee was BB–, and therefore under Rule 10TD, safe harbour rate of SBI lending rate + 475 basis points should be applied. It was also submitted that grossing up of TDS should not be considered ... second contention, the Ld. AR has submitted that the credit rating of the assessee was BB–, and therefore under Rule 10TD, safe harbour rate of SBI lending rate + 475 basis points should be applied. It is also prayed before the bench that the grossing up of TDS should

Avaada Sataramh Private Limited, Noida Gautam Budha Nagar, Up vs. ITO 5(1)(1) G Budh Nagar, Noida, Up

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4916/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

ordinary profit The TPO rejected the contentions of the assessee and distinguished the various case laws relied by the assessee, he invoked the Safe Harbour Rules. Accordingly, he proceeded to determine the adjustment of non-payment of interest to VSMPL to the extent of Rs.8,75,508/- by inferring that

Avaada Sustainable Rjproject Private Limited, Gautam Budha Nagar, Up vs. ITO 5 (1)(1), G Budh Nagar, Noida, Up

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4884/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

ordinary profit The TPO rejected the contentions of the assessee and distinguished the various case laws relied by the assessee, he invoked the Safe Harbour Rules. Accordingly, he proceeded to determine the adjustment of non-payment of interest to VSMPL to the extent of Rs.8,75,508/- by inferring that

Future First Info Services Private Ltd., Delhi vs. AO Circle-7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 672/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92D

Delhi High Court),  Li & Fung India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 306/2012) Delhi ITAT. 4.1 The Ld. AR drew out attention to the Safe Harbour Rules [Rule-10 TA(e) of the Rules notified by CBDT] wherein the back-office operations, data processing and data mining and support centers had been characterized

Garware Fulflex India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6751/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153

section 92B of the Act, for which the assessee had failed to determine the ALP. For this purpose, the Ld. TPO relied on the Safe Harbour rate specified under clause (v) of sub-rule (2A) of Rule 10TD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”), prescribing six-month LIBOR ... computed prospectively from Day 61 until actual realisation, at the rate of six-month LIBOR plus 400 basis points, a rate drawn from the Safe Harbour Rules under Rule 10TD, read with Rule 10AB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as indicative of an arm's length outcome. This granular

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

assessee, these extraordinary items materially affect the benchmarking exercise and therefore, to be treated as non-operating in nature. Reference was also made to safe harbour rules which allow for exclusion of extraordinary items while computing the operating expenses. According to the assessee, the same is also provided

Dy CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

assessee, these extraordinary items materially affect the benchmarking exercise and therefore, to be treated as non-operating in nature. Reference was also made to safe harbour rules which allow for exclusion of extraordinary items while computing the operating expenses. According to the assessee, the same is also provided

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed/partly

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

section 92C(1)- Held, yes [Para 66] II. Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Transfer pricing – Computationof arm's length price [Safe harbour rules] - Assessment 29 year 2008-09 -Assessee had incurred certain expenses on behalf of its AE - As said expenseswere to be reimbursed to assesee receipts

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 246/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.Ο No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2025 आदेश /O R D Er Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C

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