BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

410 results for “capital gains”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore410Mumbai403Delhi338Chennai94Kolkata93Ahmedabad72Hyderabad52Pune45Indore27Jaipur17Chandigarh12Amritsar8Karnataka7Guwahati5Surat5Visakhapatnam5Dehradun2Cochin2Cuttack1SC1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)80Transfer Pricing79Section 92C58Addition to Income58Comparables/TP53Section 10A37Disallowance30Deduction27Section 4025

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

method to arrive at the full market value of consideration. & CO 2/Bang/2022 Page 25 of 27 16. In Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 5/275 Taxman 187/421 ITR 46 (SC) while considering the provision of section 53 of the TP Act in the context of capital gains

Showing 1–20 of 410 · Page 1 of 21

...
Section 9220
Section 234B20
Section 14A19

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

method of valuation. 14. It was also submitted that the action of AO against Anita (Ind) had formed an opinion that capital gain arising from JDA is assessable in the hands of Mrs. Anita G.(Indl) and concluded the assessment on 25.03.2013 rejecting the plea that the assessable entity is HUF and not Individual. The learned AO recorded the reasons

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

method, by which,— IT(TP) A No. 270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security India Pvt.Ltd. (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2350/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

TP Act, 1882 and GT Act, 1958 and a company can make a gift to another company, which is valid in law. Accordingly, we accept the legal capacity of the assessee company to gift its shares in RGF Gulf to Rh-IL Cayman.” 24. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nadatur Holdings and Investments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

Capital Gain by following completed contract method as assessee not involved in the construction and development activity and the AS-7 not applicable to the assessee as the assessee is not a contractor and the assessee’s revenue is to be recognized and governed by AS-9. ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

Capital Gain by following completed contract method as assessee not involved in the construction and development activity and the AS-7 not applicable to the assessee as the assessee is not a contractor and the assessee’s revenue is to be recognized and governed by AS-9. ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

Capital Gain by following completed contract method as assessee not involved in the construction and development activity and the AS-7 not applicable to the assessee as the assessee is not a contractor and the assessee’s revenue is to be recognized and governed by AS-9. ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 332/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

Method (CPM). In the absence of such adjustment, a mere application of CPM on comparables with different functional profile will not be in tune with the TP Rules. Therefore, as CPM is adopted as the MAM, the assessee should be allowed adjustment on actual basis, which will reliable and accurate, as stipulated in Rule 10C(2). Needless

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEM (I) (P) LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 337/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

Method (CPM). In the absence of such adjustment, a mere application of CPM on comparables with different functional profile will not be in tune with the TP Rules. Therefore, as CPM is adopted as the MAM, the assessee should be allowed adjustment on actual basis, which will reliable and accurate, as stipulated in Rule 10C(2). Needless

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 333/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

Method (CPM). In the absence of such adjustment, a mere application of CPM on comparables with different functional profile will not be in tune with the TP Rules. Therefore, as CPM is adopted as the MAM, the assessee should be allowed adjustment on actual basis, which will reliable and accurate, as stipulated in Rule 10C(2). Needless

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

capital gain from the sale of shares and further erred in not adjudicating on this crucial issue by holding that this is academic in nature 7.5 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition, by making a frivolous observation that there is nothing on record to show that the copy

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2930/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2929/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 508/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sri.Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzafar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

capital adjustment while computing operating margins for the Appellant vis-a-vis the com parables. Original Grounds: c. Grounds of appeal relating to other matters 16.The learned AO has erred in law and in facts by providing credit to the taxes deducted at source only to the extent of INR 8,01,53,278 as against

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sri.Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzafar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

capital adjustment while computing operating margins for the Appellant vis-a-vis the com parables. Original Grounds: c. Grounds of appeal relating to other matters 16.The learned AO has erred in law and in facts by providing credit to the taxes deducted at source only to the extent of INR 8,01,53,278 as against

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA COFFEE PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

ITA 560/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 92

method ought to have been accepted as the MAM. We therefore set aside the order of the DRP insofar as it relates to the determination of the ALP of the international transactions and remit the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration by applying CUP as the MAM. 12. The other grounds of appeal with regard to application of TNMM

TATA COFFEE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

ITA 647/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 92

method ought to have been accepted as the MAM. We therefore set aside the order of the DRP insofar as it relates to the determination of the ALP of the international transactions and remit the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration by applying CUP as the MAM. 12. The other grounds of appeal with regard to application of TNMM

TATA COFFEE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 568/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 14A

capital gains. 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of growing, curing of coffee and Tea and also manufacturing & marketing of value added coffee/tea products. It grows coffee in its own estates, processes the beans, exports green coffee, manufactures & exports “instant coffee”. The assessee also grows pepper and cardamom. 5. The first issue urged by the assessee relates

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA COFFEE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 190/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 14A

capital gains. 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of growing, curing of coffee and Tea and also manufacturing & marketing of value added coffee/tea products. It grows coffee in its own estates, processes the beans, exports green coffee, manufactures & exports “instant coffee”. The assessee also grows pepper and cardamom. 5. The first issue urged by the assessee relates

TATA COFFEE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 729/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 14A

capital gains. 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of growing, curing of coffee and Tea and also manufacturing & marketing of value added coffee/tea products. It grows coffee in its own estates, processes the beans, exports green coffee, manufactures & exports “instant coffee”. The assessee also grows pepper and cardamom. 5. The first issue urged by the assessee relates