BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

6 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai81Delhi28Bangalore6Chennai5Indore5Jaipur3Guwahati2Kolkata2Visakhapatnam1Hyderabad1Jodhpur1Rajkot1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Section 143(1)4Section 43B4Section 404Deduction4Disallowance4Section 1953Section 139(1)2Section 144C2

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, Advocate Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 92C(3)2
Limitation/Time-bar2
Condonation of Delay2
For Respondent:
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

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. KNOWLEDGE HUT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI, BANGALORE

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

ITA 281/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Circle - 4(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Nfac, Bangalore – 560 102. Delhi. Vs. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

transfer the balance amount to the appellant. TDS is deducted u/s. 194H on commission part and not on the whole receipt and the amount of Rs.1,32,629/- was deducted as credit of TDS. The company paid Rs.16,76,041/- and Rs.9,76,530/- towards gateway payment charges (commission) to M/s. Razor Pay and M/s. Avenue India Pvt. Ltd. respectively

M/S. KNOWLEDGE HUT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 466/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Circle - 4(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Nfac, Bangalore – 560 102. Delhi. Vs. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

transfer the balance amount to the appellant. TDS is deducted u/s. 194H on commission part and not on the whole receipt and the amount of Rs.1,32,629/- was deducted as credit of TDS. The company paid Rs.16,76,041/- and Rs.9,76,530/- towards gateway payment charges (commission) to M/s. Razor Pay and M/s. Avenue India Pvt. Ltd. respectively

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), BENGLAURU, BENGALURU vs. UNITEDLEX INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS I-RUNWAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1243/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

transfer of a technical plan or technical design. These worlds are ‘which make available’. The meaning of the expression make available were considered by the Tribunal in the case of Raymond Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ (Mum) 120. The Tribunal after elaborate analysis of all the related aspects observed that :- “The words ‘making available’ in Article 13.4 refers