Facts of the Case

The present appeals were filed by the Revenue before the Delhi High Court challenging a common order dated 9 August 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years 2012–13 and 2013–14.

The dispute pertained to transfer pricing adjustments involving international transactions undertaken by M/s Birlasoft (India) Ltd. The ITAT had directed that benchmarking of such transactions be conducted using internal comparison, i.e., comparing the net margins earned from associated enterprises (AEs) with those earned from unrelated parties.

The Revenue contested this approach, arguing that the ITAT failed to consider the detailed analysis and orders passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the ITAT erred in directing benchmarking of international transactions using internal comparables based on net margins earned from associated enterprises vis-à-vis unrelated parties.
  2. Whether the ITAT ignored the detailed findings and analysis of the TPO and DRP while issuing such directions.

Petitioner’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

  • The ITAT improperly allowed internal benchmarking without adequately considering the comprehensive analysis conducted by the TPO and affirmed by the DRP.
  • The approach adopted by the ITAT diluted the robustness of transfer pricing analysis and disregarded statutory mechanisms.
  • The Revenue contended that external comparables and detailed functional analysis should prevail over internal comparisons.

Respondent’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

  • The assessee supported the ITAT’s findings, contending that internal comparables provide a more reliable and direct method for benchmarking international transactions.
  • It was argued that comparison of margins from AEs and non-AEs reflects true profitability and aligns with transfer pricing principles.
  • The assessee relied on consistency with earlier judicial precedents in its own case.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The High Court noted that an identical issue had already been considered in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2009–10.
  • In that earlier case, the Court had declined to entertain the Revenue’s appeal on the same question.
  • Following the same reasoning, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeals.
  • Accordingly, both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

Important Clarification

  • The Court reaffirmed the principle of judicial consistency, especially when identical issues in the same assessee’s case have already been decided.
  • Internal benchmarking using margins from associated and unrelated parties can be accepted where appropriate.
  • The decision reinforces that not every disagreement with ITAT findings raises a substantial question of law.

Sections Involved

  • Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Section 46 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Transfer Pricing Provisions (International Transactions Benchmarking)

 Link to download the order -

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2019:DHC:7415-DB/SMD09072019ITA5872019_164600.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.