← All Phrases

“economic adjustment”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C88 judgments

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

ITA 2533/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

{"clean_text": "IT(TP)A No.2533/Bang/2019\n Assessment Year 2015-2016\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“B” BENCH

ZS ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -12,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 211/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.211/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Zs Associates India Private V The Additional / Joint / Limited, S Deputy / Assistant Tower 3, World Trade Centre, Commissioner Of Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Income Tax, Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Pan:Aaacz2157Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade Date Of Hearing 11/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Assessment Order Dated 16.02.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017- 18, Emanating From Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 06.12.2021, Which In Turn Emanates From Draft Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(1) Of The Act

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(5)

Parexel International (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2.24 Exiservice. Com (1) Pvt. Ltd. 2.3 The learned AD/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the economic adjustment on account of differences in risk profile of the Assessee vis-à-vis the comparable companies selected by the learned TPO and confirmed

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

benchmarking.\n7. Adjustment for differences between the Appellant and its comparable companies\n7.1 The Appellant craves leave to reserve its rights to claim any economic adjustments\nfor the differences between the Appellant and its comparable companies during the\ncourse of the appeal proceedings.\nCORPORATE TAX ADJUSTMENTS\n8. Disallowance under Section

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

benchmarking.\n7. Adjustment for differences between the Appellant and its comparable companies\n7.1 The Appellant craves leave to reserve its rights to claim any economic adjustments\nfor the differences between the Appellant and its comparable companies during the\ncourse of the appeal proceedings.\nCORPORATE TAX ADJUSTMENTS\n8. Disallowance under Section

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

benchmarking.\n7. Adjustment for differences between the Appellant and its comparable companies\n7.1 The Appellant craves leave to reserve its rights to claim any economic adjustments\nfor the differences between the Appellant and its comparable companies during the\ncourse of the appeal proceedings.\nCORPORATE TAX ADJUSTMENTS\n8. Disallowance under Section

SPECTRIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3742/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3742/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Spectris Technologies P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 201-B, Second Floor, Vs. Ward-9(1), Park Centra, Sector-30, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan No.Aagcs6654R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 92

transfer pricingmethodology adopted by him. 4. Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in facts and in law by not providing the benefit of economic adjustment on account of difference in working capital in arriving at the arm’s length mean margin under TNMM. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

LUXOTTICA INDIA EYEWEAR PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1492/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalluxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, 7Th Floor, Dlf Building No.9, Circle-15(2), Tower-B, Phase-Iii, Dlf Cyber Vs. New Delhi. City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana. Pan-Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Adv., Ca Department By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Compliance To The Direction Given By Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Order Dated 15.12.2014 For Asst. Year 2010-11. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 26.05.2017 In Ita No.1492/Del/2015 Has Remand The Issue Of Tp Adjustment Towards Alleged Amp Expenses To The File Of Tpo To Decide Afresh With Certain Directions, However, Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Ground In Respect Of Tp Adjustment Made Towards International Transactions Of Import Of Finished Goods Remained Un-Adjudicated.

Section 143(3)Section 92C

manner in which transfer pricing adjustment has been made, the approach adopted by the Ld. TPO in granting 17 comparable companies denying the economic adjustment claim made by the assessee, regarding computation of margins of the assessee, non consideration of supplementary transaction and denial of adequate opportunity of being heard

SPECTRIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with above observations

ITA 3563/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Spectris Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit Ltd., 201-B, Second Floor, New Delhi Park Centra, Sector -30 Gurgaon Pan No. Aagcs6654R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Priya Goel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per C.N. Prasad, Jm, This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, New Delhi Vide Order Dated 27.03.2014 For The A.Y. 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds :- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xx, New Delhi ("Cit(A)") Is Bad In Law.

Section 234BSection 92Section 92C

transfer pricing methodology adopted by him. 4. The CIT(A) erred in facts and in law by not providing the benefit of economic adjustment on account of difference in working capital and risk profile in arriving at the arm's length mean margin under TNMM. 8. That

WESTERN UP TOLLWAY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 67/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

For Appellant: Advocates Ajay Vohra & AnanyaFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

analysis stating that only SBI linked rate loans have been considered. 5. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed by the appellant over the SBI Base Rate on account of different credit rating, maturity period and nature of security between ... Base Rate and the NCDs issued by the appellant. 6. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed by the appellant over the internal CUP data on account of different credit rating and nature of security between the NCDs issued by the appellant

WESTERN UP TOLLWAY LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 493/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

For Appellant: Advocates Ajay Vohra & AnanyaFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

analysis stating that only SBI linked rate loans have been considered. 5. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed by the appellant over the SBI Base Rate on account of different credit rating, maturity period and nature of security between ... Base Rate and the NCDs issued by the appellant. 6. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed by the appellant over the internal CUP data on account of different credit rating and nature of security between the NCDs issued by the appellant

MAHUA BHARATPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 170/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

For Appellant: Advocates Ajay Vohra & AnanyaFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

analysis stating that only SBI linked rate loans have been considered. 5. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed by the appellant over the SBI Base Rate on account of different credit rating, maturity period and nature of security between ... Base Rate and the NCDs issued by the appellant. 6. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed by the appellant over the internal CUP data on account of different credit rating and nature of security between the NCDs issued by the appellant

DSV AIR & SEA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRLE-3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3653/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 253Section 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

comparable companies which were additionally introduced with the Appellant and inaccurately computing operating margins for 13 of the additionally introduced comparable companies. Grant of economic adjustments 16. erred in not allowing the Appellant the benefit of the working capital adjustment which is required to be undertaken in its case

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ACME TELE POWER LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTION LTD.), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

international transaction. 17. In this case, it is seen that assessee has been able to demonstrate that after undertaking the economic adjustments of working capital, the operating profit margin charged by the assessee on its AE’s was higher than the margin on the goods sold

M/S. ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3641/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

international transaction. 17. In this case, it is seen that assessee has been able to demonstrate that after undertaking the economic adjustments of working capital, the operating profit margin charged by the assessee on its AE’s was higher than the margin on the goods sold

M/S. ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4478/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

international transaction. 17. In this case, it is seen that assessee has been able to demonstrate that after undertaking the economic adjustments of working capital, the operating profit margin charged by the assessee on its AE’s was higher than the margin on the goods sold

ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, have erred in not granting the economic adjustment with respect to differences on account of risk assumed and differences in functional profile between the comparables companies vis-à-vis the Appellant while determining ... after detailed consideration, rejected the objections specifically those relating to application of turnover filter, functional comparability of selected companies, and claim for risk or economic adjustments. The DRP upheld the findings of the TPO in entirety and directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment accordingly. Following the directions

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

length price. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ TPO erred in not granting the economic adjustments on account of capacity utilization and working capital while computing the net profit margin of the Appellant. The CIT(A), further erred in upholding ... AO/TPO. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO erred in not according comparability and economic adjustments as required under Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Rules. The CIT(A), further erred in upholding the action of the AO/TPΟ. 9. That

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3195/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2003-04
For Appellant: \nShri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: \nMs. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

length price.\n7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/\nTPO erred in not granting the economic adjustments on account of\ncapacity utilization and working capital while computing the net profit\nmargin of the Appellant. The CIT(A), further erred in upholding ... AO/TPO.\n8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nAO/TPO erred in not according comparability and economic adjustments\nas required under Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Rules. The CIT(A), further\nerred in upholding the action of the AO/TPO.\n9. That

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), CHENNAI., CHENNAI vs. M/S. CATERPILLAR INDIA PVT. LTD , CHENNAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 42/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 717/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Caterpillar India Private Tax, Limited, 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle- 3(3), V. Chennai – 600 034. Taramani Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. By Virtual ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Dated 07.03.2023. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For :-2-: It(Tp) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

erred in the following grounds: Manufacturing of Earthmoving Equipment Segment 3. Erroneous Rejection of Economic Adjustments - Idle Capacity :-3-: IT(TP) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & 3(a) Erred in not allowing appropriate economic adjustments when applying Transactional Net Margin Method, in accordance with the provisions of Rule ... companies by virtue of powers vested with the TPO under section 133(6) of the Act as upheld by various Tribunals. Erroneous Rejection of Economic Adjustments - Non Cenvatable Customs Duty Adjustment 3(f) Erred in law and on facts in rejecting the claim of non-cenvatable customs duty adjustment

M/S VODAFONE GLOBAL SERVICES P LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 660/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 156Section 270Section 92C(2)Section 92D

operating margin of the Appellant by considering certain items as non-operating/operating which are operating/ non-operating in nature. 7. Not allowing economic adjustments, like Risk, R&D, marketing adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10B of the Rules. 8. Not sharing the search strategy adopted

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5