This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws
S. 143(2): Assessment-Notice-Additional ground-Notice issued under section 143(2) contrary to the mandatory format prescribed by CBDT Instruction issued under section 119 is invalid-Consequently, the assessment based on such notice is liable to be quashed. [S.119, 143(3), 254(1)]
Shib Nath Ghosh v. ITΟ (2025) 130 ITR 69 (Kol)(Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Management consultancy services-Internal CUP/Internal TNMM to be preferred over external comparables-Transfer pricing adjustment deleted-Transfer Pricing Officer not adopting any prescribed method-Adjustment unsustainable-Selection of comparables-Comparable engaged in similar line of business cannot be excluded. [S. 92CA, R. 10B]
Boston Consulting Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 130 ITR 717 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Selection of Comparables-Companies having huge brand value, intangibles, R&D activities and related party transactions not comparable to captive software service provider-Working capital adjustment-Adjustment cannot be denied without assigning reasons-Assessee entitled to relief-TPO must adopt one of the prescribed statutory methods-Second attempt to rectify omission not permissible. [S.92CA, 92B]
Capgemini India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 130 ITR 431 (Mum.)(Trib.) Editorial: Affirmed in PCIT v. Capgemini India P. Ltd. (2025) 181 taxmann.com 7 (Bom.)(HC).
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Comparable companies having exceptionally high turnover to be excluded while determining ALP.-Working capital adjustment is allowable while determining arm’s length price-Purchases from non-associated enterprises cannot be treated as deemed international transactions in the absence of evidence of influence by the associated enterprise [S. 92, 92B, 92CA]
Comer Industries India (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 130 ITR 238 (Bang.)(Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Interest on compulsorily convertible debentures to be benchmarked as debt till conversion-Recharacterisation not permissible-Benchmarking at Libor + 200 basis points proper and in accordance with Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. [S. 92CA]
Fairfield Developments Ltd. v. Dy. DIT (2025) 130 ITR 211 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Intra-group services-ALP of GIS services cannot be determined at NIL where assessee substantiated receipt, benefit and cost allocation of services-Addition deleted-GSA services remanded for fresh benchmarking. [S. 92CA]
Lintas India P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 130 ITR 28 (Mum)(Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Foreign exchange gain arising from trade receivables of international transactions constitutes operating income for computing PLI-Functionally dissimilar companies cannot be selected as comparables for benchmarking ITES transactions. [S.92BA]
Vodafone Global Services P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 130 ITR 323 (Pune)(Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Overseas AE, being the least complex entity, can be selected as the tested party where the assessee substantiates its functional profile and comparability-Matter remanded for fresh examination. [S.92A, 92B]
Unilog Content Solutions P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 130 ITR 477 (Bang)(Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Ad-hoc determination of ALP of intra-group royalty payments at Nil without applying any prescribed method or comparable transaction is unsustainable-Where the assessee benchmarked the transaction under CUP and substantiated receipt of services, TP adjustment is liable to be deleted. [S.92CA]
Unilever India Exports Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 130 ITR 455 (Mum)(Trib.)
S. 90: Double taxation relief-Tax on excess interest under Article 11 cannot exceed the treaty rate of 10%-Surcharge and education cess not leviable separately-DTAA-India-Cyprus. [Art. 11]
Fairfield Developments Ltd. v. Dy. DIT (2025) 130 ITR 211 (Hyd.)(Trib.)