https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207210 The court held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) exceeded his jurisdiction by independently considering and adjusting the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions not specifically referred to him by the Assessing Officer (AO). The court affirmed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's ruling that the TPO's role is limited to transactions referred by the AO and cannot suo moto take cognizance of other transactions. The court dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding that the TPO's jurisdiction is restricted to referred transactions, in accordance with Section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207210 The court held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) exceeded his jurisdiction by independently considering and adjusting the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions not specifically referred to him by the Assessing Officer (AO). The court affirmed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's ruling that the TPO's role is limited to transactions referred by the AO and cannot suo moto take cognizance of other transactions. The court dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding that the TPO's jurisdiction is restricted to referred transactions, in accordance with Section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207210