2026 (3) TMI 1351 - HC - Income Tax

Transfer pricing precedent bars AMP and receivables adjustments, while FAR-based comparable selection was also sustained.

Delhi High Court reiterated that the Revenue's transfer pricing challenges were covered by earlier precedent. It upheld rejection of the BLT-based AMP ... TP Adjustment - BLT method for AMP adjustment - Comparable selection - Interest on receivables - Separate benchmarking TP Adjustment - BLT method for AMP adjustment - International transaction - TPO's findings relating to the conduct of parties and ownership of intangibles (IPR's) in respect of AMP expenses - HELD THAT: - We find that Issues ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ in one way or the other relate to the basic issues which have been decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment in Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd [2025 (12) TMI 1809 - DELHI HIGH COURT] whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue on similar issue has been rejected.[Paras 11] The Revenue's grounds on AMP adjustment and allied transfer pricing aspects were rejected as covered by the earlier judgment. Interest on receivables - Separate benchmarking - Tribunal's deletion of separate adjustment on interest on receivables - As argued assessee has failed to prove that its working capital adjustment captured abnormal delays - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Issue 'D' was covered by its earlier order in Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 180 - ITAT DELHI] which had been relied upon by the Tribunal. On that basis, the Revenue's objection to the Tribunal's treatment of receivables did not survive. [Paras 13] No separate interference was warranted on the issue of interest on receivables. Comparable selection - FAR analysis - inclusion of comparable which do not have similar FAR as that of the assessee - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Issue 'E' was covered by its earlier order in Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (3) TMI 1387 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. As the question of inclusion of the comparable had already been addressed in that case, the Revenue's ground on dissimilarity in FAR could not be entertained. [Paras 12] The Tribunal's view on inclusion of the comparable was sustained. Final Conclusion: The Court held that all the questions sought to be raised by the Revenue were already covered by earlier decisions against it. Both appeals were therefore dismissed. Outcome: Appeals dismissed.