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.

287 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 250(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,174Delhi867Chennai302Bangalore287Kolkata259Karnataka254Ahmedabad234Hyderabad176Surat173Jaipur156Cochin117Chandigarh101Indore87Pune84Rajkot55Calcutta51Visakhapatnam31Nagpur23Cuttack22Lucknow20Amritsar18Raipur17Guwahati11Telangana11SC10Patna8Varanasi8Jodhpur7Allahabad6Ranchi3Rajasthan3Dehradun2Agra1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72Section 25046Section 143(3)43Section 14A36Section 153C30Disallowance30Section 1127Transfer Pricing27Section 92C

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for assessment year 2010-11 is highly illegal, improper and unjust and also in the gross violation of the principles of natural justice. (3) The learned respondent seriously erred in not noticing the fact that in view of the pendency of the various legal litigation on the properties, the appellant

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 287 · Page 1 of 15

...
25
Section 2(15)20
Section 10A20
Comparables/TP16

In the result, Both the C

ITA 63/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 28. Therefore, for any amount claimed as ITA No. 2006/Bang/2017, IT(TP)A Nos. 63 & 84/Bang/2015, 599, 2060 & 2178/Bang/2016 & C.O. Nos. 83/Bang/2017 & 09/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 48 deduction it should be in the nature of interest. Further, the interest should be in respect to borrowed Capital. 1.2 Borrowed Capital is 'Debt' and it is different from equity capital

M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

ITA 84/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 28. Therefore, for any amount claimed as ITA No. 2006/Bang/2017, IT(TP)A Nos. 63 & 84/Bang/2015, 599, 2060 & 2178/Bang/2016 & C.O. Nos. 83/Bang/2017 & 09/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 48 deduction it should be in the nature of interest. Further, the interest should be in respect to borrowed Capital. 1.2 Borrowed Capital is 'Debt' and it is different from equity capital

MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

section 143(3A) and (3B) of the act, for the assessment year 2016- 17 on following grounds of appeal: “1. JURISDICTION 1.1. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in referring the case to the learned Transfer Pricing Page 2 of 22 IT(TP)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Officer (TPO) in violation of Instruction

M/S TRILOGY E- BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 33/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P.) A. No.33/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd., No.1/2, Lalitha Nilaya, 4Th Cross, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bhopsandra, Bangalore-560 094. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore-560 001. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P.) A. No.115/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C.A. Respondent By : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.5.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 6.11.2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Bangalore For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.33 & 115/Bang/2013 2. The Assessee-Company Was Incorporated In June 2000 & Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Versata International Inc., (Previously Known As Trilogy Inc.). During The Financial Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Has Provided Software Development Services As Well As Call Centre Services To Its Associated Enterprises (In Short ‘Aes’). The Assessee Is Compensated On Cost +10% Basis By Its Aes For The Services Provided By The Assessee. The Financial Results Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Recorded By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short ‘Tpo’) In Paragraph 2.1 As Under :

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

250(6) on 06.11.2012. 2. In the order passed under section 143(3), transfer pricing additions were made for transactions

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

6,302,550,250/- 13. We are aware of the fact that there is no estoppels of law and such reporting does not give rise to the conclusion that the transaction is indeed an international transaction. However, Section 92A(2) of the Act states that two enterprises shall deemed to be an associated enterprises if, at any time during

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

6,302,550,250/- 13. We are aware of the fact that there is no estoppels of law and such reporting does not give rise to the conclusion that the transaction is indeed an international transaction. However, Section 92A(2) of the Act states that two enterprises shall deemed to be an associated enterprises if, at any time during

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

250 of IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 50 the Act. Certain issues are common in both these appeals, hence, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Facts of the case in IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 for the assessment year

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

250 of IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 50 the Act. Certain issues are common in both these appeals, hence, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Facts of the case in IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 for the assessment year

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

ITA 1019/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra & Ms.S. Praveena
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

250 of the Act are bad in law and on facts. Without prejudice to the to the generality of the above, the order issued by the AO is bad in law insofar as the fact that the AO did not issue to Essilor Manufacturing India Private Limited (‘the Appellant or ‘the Company’), a show cause notice as per proviso

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

6. Aggrieved by the directions of the DRP, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that Bright Line Test is not one of the prescribed methods under the transfer pricing provisions. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson

AMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,

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

ITA 437/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 92C(3)

250 of the Act, are bad in law and on facts and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. b) The AO has erred in making a reference to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, (Transfer Pricing) - I, Bangalore [‘TPO’], inter alia, since AMD India Private Limited [‘AMD India’ or ‘the Appellant’] has satisfied all the conditions

ITO vs. M/S AAMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,

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

ITA 457/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 92C(3)

250 of the Act, are bad in law and on facts and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. b) The AO has erred in making a reference to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, (Transfer Pricing) - I, Bangalore [‘TPO’], inter alia, since AMD India Private Limited [‘AMD India’ or ‘the Appellant’] has satisfied all the conditions

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

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

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

6). For Alt. 11 (6), at least its wording, allows the authorities to 'eliminate hypothetically' the special relationships only in regard to the level of interest rates and not in regard to other circumstances, such as the choice of currency. If such other circumstances were to be included in the review, there would be doubts as to where the line

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

6). For Alt. 11 (6), at least its wording, allows the authorities to 'eliminate hypothetically' the special relationships only in regard to the level of interest rates and not in regard to other circumstances, such as the choice of currency. If such other circumstances were to be included in the review, there would be doubts as to where the line

DMG MORI SEIKI INDIA MACHINES AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1617/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri. Jason P Boazit(Tp)A 1617/Bang/2012 (Asst. Year – 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 27lSection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

250 of the Act, are had in law and on facts and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Without prejudice to the to the generality of the above, the order issued by the AO is bad in law insofar as the fact that the AO did not issue to DMG Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustments- 6. Donations for 10A units: Rs. 18,52,713 6.1 The learned AO/ DRP has erred in disallowing the donation expenditure without attributing the same to the corresponding unit where it was incurred. 6.2 The learned AO/DRP ought to have observed that the said expenditure pertains to the unit eligible to avail benefit under section

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2806/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 11.3 Respectfully following the above judgment of coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we allow this ground of the assessee. Ground No.8 12. The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that Rohan Motors Ltd., and Sicagen India Ltd., were considered by the TPO as comparable companies after

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2347/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2347/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015 – 16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Assessee; c. Adopting inappropriate filterss like 25% RPT filter, one sided turnover filter, etc in the process of selecting comparables; d. Rejecting Priya International Limited as a comparable as selected by the Appellant in the TP study on unjustifiable grounds; e. Adopting companies as comparables even though they are not comparable in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. BRADY COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2381/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Suryanarayana Advocate & Ms
Section 143(3)Section 144C

6) OP/OR 10% (7) ALP OP/OR 40% As per assumption (8) ALP OP 40 OR*ALP OP/OR (9) ALP OC 60 OR – ALP OP (10) Total Adjustment 30 OC – ALP OC ITA Nos.: 2381/Bang/2024 Page 12 of 15 (11) Proportionate 13.33 Total Adjustment Adjustment * (AE’s OC/OC) If proportionate adjustment is applied, despite the controlled transaction being inflated