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.

5 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 244aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai102Delhi43Ahmedabad10Jaipur9Chandigarh7Cochin7Bangalore5Lucknow3Indore3Kolkata2Chennai2Pune2Rajkot2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 10A5Section 92C4Section 2503Addition to Income3Transfer Pricing3Comparables/TP3

QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE :LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BELAGAVI

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

ITA 279/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.279/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 92C

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of section 92C of the Act 3. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis by introducing various filters for the purpose of determining

BIOCON BIOLOGICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1590/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2024AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO', 'Ld. TPO') and\ndirections of the Hon'ble DRP are based on incorrect\nappreciation of facts of the case and incorrect interpretation\nof law and therefore, are bad in law and are liable to be\nquashed.\n3. The Ld. AO erred in assessing total income of the\nAppellant

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 390/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Pricing documentation despite Rule 10B(4) of the Rules providing for the use of such data. 9. The learned TPO/ Learned AO erred in applying export earning filter of 25% of the total sales, leading to a narrower set of comparable companies. 10. The learned TPO/ Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not applying the upper limit on turnover

M/S. METRICSTREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 153/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Appellant; ii) Adopting inappropriate filters like one sided turnover filter, 25% RPT filter, etc, in the process of selecting comparables and not adopting appropriate filters like onsite revenue filter etc; iii) Incorrectly computing the operating margins of comparables; and iv) Adopting following companies as comparables even though they are not comparable in respect

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1530/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 80A(5)

244A. The ld. CIT(A) /NFAC, however dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee in relation to claim of Infosys Limited Page 4 of 20 deduction under section 10AA of the Act on interest income and gains on forward contracts, stating that the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act does not entertain fresh claims being made at this