{"id":62802,"date":"2026-07-30T10:25:36","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T04:55:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dy-cit-v-hexagon-manufacturing-intelligence-india-p-ltd-2025-129-itr-317-punetrib\/"},"modified":"2026-07-30T10:25:36","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T04:55:36","slug":"dy-cit-v-hexagon-manufacturing-intelligence-india-p-ltd-2025-129-itr-317-punetrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dy-cit-v-hexagon-manufacturing-intelligence-india-p-ltd-2025-129-itr-317-punetrib\/","title":{"rendered":"Dy. CIT v. Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence India P. Ltd. (2025) 129 ITR 317 (Pune)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"margin: 0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height: 150%\"><span lang=\"EN-IN\" style=\"font-family: &#039;Verdana&#039;,sans-serif\">The Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm&#8217;s length price of technical know-how fees paid by the assessee to its associated enterprises at Nil. The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer was bound to determine the arm&#8217;s length price by applying one of the methods prescribed under section 92C and had no authority to determine the arm&#8217;s length price at Nil or insist upon a need-benefit test. The matter was decided in favour of the assessee following the decision in its own case for the earlier year. <strong><span style=\"font-family: &#039;Verdana&#039;,sans-serif\">(AY. 2010-11).<\/span><\/strong><b><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm\u2019s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction  Technical know-how fees-Transfer Pricing Officer cannot determine arm&#8217;s length price at Nil without applying prescribed method-Need-benefit test not permissible. [S. 92CA]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62802","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gkW","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62802","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62802"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62802\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62803,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62802\/revisions\/62803"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}