← All Phrases

“arm's length price”

Transfer PricingSection 92Section 921,810 judgments

The decision most relied on for arm's length price is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), cited in 422 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on arm's length price

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.

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
376 ITR 183 · 2015 · High Court
170
citing judgments

For transfer pricing comparability analysis, companies should not be excluded solely based on higher turnover if they are otherwise functionally comparable, unless the turnover difference reflects fundamental functional dissimilarities, brand value, or risk profiles that materially impact profitability.

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.
430 ITR 298 · 2021 · High Court
132
citing judgments

A corporate guarantee issued to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring adjustments for guarantee commission due to inherent risk. The reasonable arm's length rate for benchmarking such corporate guarantees can be determined using internal or external comparable uncontrolled prices.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT
381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

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.

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.

Judgments citing arm's length price

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made a reference under section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm’s length price in respect of international transactions and specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee in Form No. 3CEB. The TPO, vide order passed under section ... learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the internal comparable are to be preferred over the external comparable while determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction. c) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made a reference under section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm’s length price in respect of international transactions and specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee in Form No. 3CEB. The TPO, vide order passed under section ... learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the internal comparable are to be preferred over the external comparable while determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction. c) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have

Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National E Assessment Centre- Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4260/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessment Jungheinrich Lift Truck Unit/Nfac/Dcit India Private Limited Circle 15(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Delphi A Wing, Mumbai Central Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani, Business Mumbai. Park, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 076 Pan/Gir No. Aaccj7808G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain / Shri Siddesh Chaugule / Shri Rishab Parekh, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm: This Appeal Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Assessment Unit (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. Ao) For Ay 2020-21 In Pursuance To The Direction Of Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 14.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43A

expenses 4 Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Private Limited 2.1 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ AU/ DRP has erred in computing the Arm's Length Price ("ALP") of the international transaction of "Reimbursement of expenses" with transaction value of INR 75,08,637 at NIL without appreciating the fact that ... case was selected for scrutiny and a draft assessment order dated 22.09.2023 was issued with certain transfer pricing based on arm’s length price variation u/s 92C(A) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee is engaged in the business of buying and selling of trucks and spares

Humboldt Wedag India Private Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4726/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhumboldt Wedag India Private Ltd., Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asstt. A – 36, Mehtab House, Commission Of Income-Tax, Mohan Co-Op. Estate, Mathura Road, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi – 110 044. Circle 10(1), Delhi. (Pan : Aaach7474G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajineesh Verma, Ca Ms. Hem Lata Verma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Order : 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 05.09.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Subsequent To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp)/Tpo Vide Order Dated 07.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Pertaining To Transfer Pricing Matters: Adjustment Rs.10,486,841 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. Drp'), The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Appellant: Shri Rajineesh Verma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 234ASection 270ASection 92CSection 92C(2)

making an adjustment of Rs.10,486,841 to the total income of the Appellant on account of the alleged difference in the arm's length price (‘ALP') of its international related party transactions under the provisions of Section 92CA( 4) of the Act. 2 On the facts ... erred in not allowing the benefit of (+/-) 3% as provided in the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant. 6 On without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances