Lindstrom Services India Private Limited Vs Deputy/ACIT (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.01.2026 passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), TP 2(2)(2), Delhi.
During proceedings before the TPO, a show cause notice dated 04.12.2025 was issued requiring the petitioner to respond in relation to four agreements relied upon by the TPO. The petitioner sought copies of those agreements. However, the TPO declined to provide them, stating that the Act of 1961 does not envisage supplying copies of such agreements.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that without access to the agreements, it could not effectively defend itself. It was argued that the parties involved, the nature of agreements, and the activities undertaken could differ across businesses and countries. In the absence of the clauses of the agreements relied upon, the petitioner’s ability to contest the pricing determination was adversely affected.
The respondents contended that the agreements were available on the “Royalty stat database” and could have been downloaded by the petitioner. It was also argued that the petitioner could raise objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) after reference of the matter.
In rejoinder, the petitioner submitted that once pricing is determined and referred to the DRP, it becomes binding upon the Assessing Officer, and it would be difficult to unsettle the same. It was further submitted that without copies of the agreements, effective challenge would not be possible. The petitioner denied any intention to delay proceedings and suggested that the Court may fix timelines for supply of agreements, filing of reply, and passing of a fresh order. It was acknowledged that the last date for passing the final order by the TPO was 31.01.2026 and that an order had already been passed. The petitioner requested that the order be set aside and the time for passing a fresh order be extended.
