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.

29 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai151Delhi111Kolkata42Bangalore29Chennai27Ahmedabad15Hyderabad6Jaipur5Indore5Chandigarh4Cuttack2Visakhapatnam2Pune2Rajkot2Guwahati2SC1Surat1Kerala1Jodhpur1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)28Transfer Pricing16Addition to Income16Section 36(1)(viia)15Section 4014Section 201(1)14Disallowance14Section 92C12Section 10A

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

12
Comparables/TP12
Deduction11
Section 1948

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

Transfer Pricing Officer-TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, Tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and. DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2835/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. The Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. 5.Non-allowance of appropriate adjustment to the comparable companies by the Ld. DRP and AO/ TPO The Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1264/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, or any other bank being a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (iii) "public financial institution" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) "State financial corporation" means a financial corporation established under section

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the international transactions with the AE. This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. Corporate tax issues 53. The assessee has raised ground Nos.11 to 18 regarding depreciation and additional depreciation as follows:- “11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/ learned Dispute Resolution Panel (learned

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

transfer pricing adjustment adjustment at the segment level, in relation to the Appellant’s margin from its licensed manufacturing segment, without restricting such adjustment to the proportion of its international transactions in the said segment. B. TP Adjustment - IS charges and corporate service charges[Original GoA - No. 14 - 15] 9. ALP cannot be 9.1. The lower authorities erred in determining

M/S IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 648/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

price and the sale discount is treated and whether the sale discount is reflected in their books. If the accounts are not ITA Nos.648 to 651 & 758 to 761/Bang/2014 M/s.Idea Cellular Ltd. Page 15 of 22 reflected as set out above, in para 60, Section 194H of the Act is not attracted. Ordered accordingly.” 11. We further note that

M/S IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 651/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

price and the sale discount is treated and whether the sale discount is reflected in their books. If the accounts are not ITA Nos.648 to 651 & 758 to 761/Bang/2014 M/s.Idea Cellular Ltd. Page 15 of 22 reflected as set out above, in para 60, Section 194H of the Act is not attracted. Ordered accordingly.” 11. We further note that

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S IDEA CELLUAR LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 758/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

price and the sale discount is treated and whether the sale discount is reflected in their books. If the accounts are not ITA Nos.648 to 651 & 758 to 761/Bang/2014 M/s.Idea Cellular Ltd. Page 15 of 22 reflected as set out above, in para 60, Section 194H of the Act is not attracted. Ordered accordingly.” 11. We further note that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 61/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. As regards grounds No.4, 5 & 6 are concerned; we find that they relate to corporate matters. 16. As regards ground No.4(a) is concerned, brief facts are that during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee had paid income

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 23/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. As regards grounds No.4, 5 & 6 are concerned; we find that they relate to corporate matters. 16. As regards ground No.4(a) is concerned, brief facts are that during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee had paid income

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

pricing study by the Appellant. 6.2 The Ld. Panel and the AO / TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. 7. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustment to the comparable companies by the Ld. Panel and AO/ TPO AO/ TPO erred in law and on facts

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 642/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

pricing study by the Appellant. 6.2 The Ld. Panel and the AO / TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. 7. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustment to the comparable companies by the Ld. Panel and AO/ TPO AO/ TPO erred in law and on facts

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2834/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. • The Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in law, and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple- year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. 7. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustment to the comparable companies

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. • The Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in law, and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple- year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. 7. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustment to the comparable companies

DELL INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Transfer pricing documentation and in the submission made before the TPO from time to time. 18. The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering the multiple year prior year financial data of comparable companies while determining the arm's length price. 19. The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering provision

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 440/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 440/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Rmz Pinnacle, No. 15, Income Tax, Commissariat Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 025. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Assessee By Sr. Counsel Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala

194H of the act and therefore these expenses are purely in the nature of selling expenses and cannot be categorised as AMP as alleged by the revenue authorities. 3.5 The Ld.Counsel submitted that, the Ld.TPO considered 50% of the distributor allowances without appreciating that TDS has already been deducted on these payments and without appreciating that the fact that

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

price at 25.25%. Even though, DRP refused to interfere with the objections of the assessee in its order, we were informed that DRP has directed the TPO/A.O. not to make any negative working capital adjustment in some of the cases in the next assessment year, in the cases of Market Tools Research P. Ltd., and Mega Systems Worldwide India

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 3168/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing Rules under Rule 10(b) to 10(e) of the Income Tax Rules, the data of the said firm, i.e., Persistent Systems Ltd., could not have been included. Likewise, as far as the Wipro Technology Services goes, it was part of the Citi Group and was during the financial year in question acquired on 21.01.2009 by the Wipro

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S HERBAL LIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 2587/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing Rules under Rule 10(b) to 10(e) of the Income Tax Rules, the data of the said firm, i.e., Persistent Systems Ltd., could not have been included. Likewise, as far as the Wipro Technology Services goes, it was part of the Citi Group and was during the financial year in question acquired on 21.01.2009 by the Wipro