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(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi567Mumbai493Karnataka250Bangalore119Jaipur64Chennai61Kolkata61Ahmedabad58Chandigarh54Pune52Hyderabad31Indore23Surat16Calcutta16Rajkot12Lucknow10Telangana9Cochin9Dehradun8SC7Amritsar7Ranchi6Varanasi6Visakhapatnam5Allahabad5Rajasthan3Jodhpur3Guwahati3Raipur2Cuttack2Nagpur1Panaji1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") to determine the Arm's Length Price ("ALP") by following the Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, without taking cognizance of the fact that the 3d and 4 1h grounds of objections are factual grounds pertaining only to the AY 2011-12 and are not covered

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

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

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

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

CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order passed by The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle Page 2 of 19 IT(TP)A No. 520/Bang/2022 2(2), BLR ("Assessing Officer" or "AO") dated 12 April 2022 in pursuance of the Directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") - 1, Bengaluru dated 11 March

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

4. The Ld D.R, however, submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Export Overseas P Ltd (supra) has held that the payments covered by clause (i) of sec.92BA are required to be examined in terms of sec.40A(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld D.R submitted that the matter may be restored to the file

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

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

ITA 1302/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandrashekar. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

Transfer Pricing adjustment under section 92CA of the Act Call Centre Services - Primary Objections a) The Honourable DRP and the learned AO have erred in rejecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price (hereinafter referred to as the - 'CUP") data on the grounds that the margins earned by the third party service providers differ from that of the appellant. b) The Honourable

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS BV - INDIA BRANCH, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed and appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No.309/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 1O

4 of 37 IT(TP)A No.309 & 426/Bang/2016 12. M/s. iGate Global Solutions (i) Whether the Hon'ble DRP erred in fact and law in rejecting the comparable on the round that segmental information is not available, when the company had classified itself to be operating in one segment i.e. provision of ITES. (ii) Whether the order

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

4 and 5 of the Act brings /charges to tax total income of the previous year. This would take us to the meaning of the word income under the Act as defined in Section 2(24) of the Act. The amounts received on issue of shares is admittedly a capital account transaction not separately brought within the definition of Income

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 YASKAWA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2020/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.2020/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of No.17/A, 2Nd Main, Electronic Income-Tax, City, Phase – I, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru – 560 100. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacy 4408 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

4. Grounds 1 to 8 (Transfer Pricing Issues) and 9(b) – Corporate Tax 4.1 At the outset of the hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that vide letter dated 21.03.2019, the assessee has sought withdrawal of appeal filed under section 253

MOLEX INDIA TOOLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes in

ITA 1494/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri P.K Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253Section 92C

section 253 (1) (d) against the order passed by the learned AO in pursuance of the directions of the Honourable DRP. 1. Adjustments for material differences •The Honourable DRP and the learned AO have erred in accepting the contention of the TPO that the transactions are not at arm's length price. •The Honourable DRP and the learned AO have

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

4 of 16 the learned counsel for the assessee and filed a objection before the ORP. Having adjudicated the objections, the DRP has issued certain directions and consequently the AO passed an order. Subsequently, by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted from the statute. Now the question arises as to whether on account