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.

119 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi567Mumbai493Karnataka250Bangalore119Jaipur64Chennai61Kolkata61Ahmedabad58Chandigarh56Pune52Hyderabad31Indore23Surat16Calcutta16Rajkot12Lucknow10Telangana9Cochin9Dehradun8SC7Amritsar7Ranchi6Varanasi6Visakhapatnam5Allahabad5Rajasthan3Jodhpur3Guwahati3Raipur2Cuttack2Nagpur1Panaji1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)72Transfer Pricing60Comparables/TP57Addition to Income55Section 92C51Section 10A32Section 25322Section 153A22Deduction

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

Showing 1–20 of 119 · Page 1 of 6

22
Disallowance21
Section 219
Section 2(15)18

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

M/S UL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1715/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AOvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 144Section 234BSection 253

253 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("Act") against the order passed on 28.01 .2016 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Taxpayers Unit, Circle - 1, Bangalore ("AO") (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 961/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act) on the following grounds: Page 2 of 17 IT(IT)A No. 961/Bang/2017 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and based on the directions of the DRP: A. Grounds of appeal relating to corporate tax matters 1. The learned AO has erred

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.598/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. (Since Amalgamated With M/S.Sitel India Pvt. Ltd.) 501, Wing A & B, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 072 Pan: Aaccc0408M … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bengaluru. ... Respondent & It(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. Bengaluru. … Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia & Nikhil Tiwari, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundari Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Cross Appeals By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee & Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2015

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P.Lohia & Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundari Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

253/-. The TPO accepted the TNMM adopted by the assessee-company but rejected the transfer pricing study report, citing that the assessee has not used current financial year data in the TP study report and selected the companies which had not passed through the filters applied by the assessee itself. The TPO proceeded to identify a different set of comparable

SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 598/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.598/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. (Since Amalgamated With M/S.Sitel India Pvt. Ltd.) 501, Wing A & B, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 072 Pan: Aaccc0408M … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bengaluru. ... Respondent & It(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. Bengaluru. … Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia & Nikhil Tiwari, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundari Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Cross Appeals By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee & Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2015

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P.Lohia & Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundari Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

253/-. The TPO accepted the TNMM adopted by the assessee-company but rejected the transfer pricing study report, citing that the assessee has not used current financial year data in the TP study report and selected the companies which had not passed through the filters applied by the assessee itself. The TPO proceeded to identify a different set of comparable

INVTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 830/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia, C. AFor Respondent: Shri C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(1)(d)

253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), against the order dated 13 February 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144 C of the Act in pursuance of the directions dated 12 October

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

253 of the paperbook, as per which, the average price is Rs. 917.27. • Moreover, the price at which the Appellant had sold the shares is the same price at which the other group companies sold their shares to Relay. Since the price charged by the other group companies is accepted, upon application of the ‘CUP’ method, the price charged

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

253 of the paperbook, as per which, the average price is Rs. 917.27. • Moreover, the price at which the Appellant had sold the shares is the same price at which the other group companies sold their shares to Relay. Since the price charged by the other group companies is accepted, upon application of the ‘CUP’ method, the price charged

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3

M/S ADC (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS AND INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1230/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Membe

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 253

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1. That the order of the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Bangalore (`Assessing Officer' or `AO') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. [corresponding

SRI. KRISHNA DIAMONDS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 232/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goutham, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 234BSection 92B

transfer pricing adjustment is liable to be deleted. When it was pointed out that the coordinate bench has restored the issue to the file of the A.O. for examining the payments in terms of section 40A(2) of the Act, the Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue may be restored to the file of the A.O. for examining

M/S OCWEN FINANCIAL SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1318/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Manoj M Shenoy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234B

3. That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred both in facts and law in confirming the action of the learned TPO of making an adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant by Rs. 26,287,632 in respect of its contract software development services and by Rs. 155,227,253 in respect of its Information Technology enabled

M/S SOBHA CITY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2936/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

transfer pricing adjustment is liable to be deleted. When it was pointed out that ITA No.2936/Bang/20180 M/s. Sobha City, Bangalore Page 6 of 16 the coordinate bench has restored the issue to the file of the A.O. for examining the payments in terms of section 40A(2) of the Act, the Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue may be restored

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 285/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 92C

section 92CA of the Act as per the communication/order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the directions of DRP. SI.No Description Amount 1 Arm's Length Price difference in the royalty Rs.20,27,37,762/- paid 2 Arm's Length Price difference in Rs.253,10,21,733 / - distribution segment 3 Arm's Length Price difference in the Software Rs.110

M/S. CAUVERY AQUA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2021/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2021/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40ASection 6Section 92BSection 92C

transfer pricing adjustment is liable to be deleted. When it was pointed out that the coordinate bench has restored the issue to the file of the A.O. for examining the payments in terms of section 40A(2) of the Act, the Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue may be restored to the file of the A.O. for examining

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 291/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144CSection 92C

section 37 of the I T Act. 16. The Learned AO erred in not giving TDS credit amounting to Rs.1,37,88,075/- and no reasons or explanations have been given for denying the credit. ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S 234A, B& C 17. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234A, B& C of the Act. Further prays that