← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Saipem India Projects Private Limited, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2319/CHNY/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2264/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2319/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 4, Fourth Lane Yaralagadda Towers Chennai. Off Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaaci-7915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017- 18 & 2018-19 Have Identical Facts & Issues. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 [Cit(A)] On 28-06- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

case. The Id. CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the average 2. LIBOR rate and recomputed the arm's length price accordingly. 2.1. The Id. CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the average LIBOR rate and recomputed the arm's length price

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Saipem India Projects Private Limited, Kanchipuram

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2264/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2264/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2319/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 4, Fourth Lane Yaralagadda Towers Chennai. Off Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaaci-7915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017- 18 & 2018-19 Have Identical Facts & Issues. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 [Cit(A)] On 28-06- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

case. The Id. CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the average 2. LIBOR rate and recomputed the arm's length price accordingly. 2.1. The Id. CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the average LIBOR rate and recomputed the arm's length price

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

transactions. Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of transaction of payment of royalty: 4. Impugned order erred in law and in facts in considering arm's length price of international transaction of payment of royalty as NIL: 4.1 Ld. DRP has erred in upholding the adjustment by relying on its directions ... benchmarking the payment of royalty at Nil. The Tribunal held that the learned TPO was required to conduct a study to determine the arm’s length price and not to determine the commercial expediency of the international transactions with the AEs. The Tribunal also accepted that Sony Corporation, Japan