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.

234 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 254clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai824Delhi677Karnataka259Bangalore234Chennai167Surat132Pune122Jaipur121Kolkata114Ahmedabad88Cochin87Hyderabad81Chandigarh68Calcutta54Indore32Rajkot21Raipur18Lucknow15SC10Visakhapatnam10Telangana9Nagpur8Amritsar7Jabalpur6Varanasi6Jodhpur5Dehradun5Agra4Rajasthan3Kerala2Cuttack2Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Allahabad1Panaji1Guwahati1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Addition to Income63Section 143(3)44Transfer Pricing39Section 92C32Section 10A32Section 153A24Deduction24Comparables/TP19Section 2

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

Showing 1–20 of 234 · Page 1 of 12

...
18
Section 2(15)18
Section 13218
Disallowance17

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 739/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

254/- the loss was assessed at Rs.14,30,84,279/-. The Hon’ble ITAT, in the case of the assessee, for AYs 2005-06 & 2006-07, upheld the adjustment which the TPO has made in these two years, towards reimbursement of expenses without mark-up by the assessee to its AE. The Hon’ble ITAT has confirmed

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 330/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

254/- the loss was assessed at Rs.14,30,84,279/-. The Hon’ble ITAT, in the case of the assessee, for AYs 2005-06 & 2006-07, upheld the adjustment which the TPO has made in these two years, towards reimbursement of expenses without mark-up by the assessee to its AE. The Hon’ble ITAT has confirmed

M/S NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 3321/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

254/- the loss was assessed at Rs.14,30,84,279/-. The Hon’ble ITAT, in the case of the assessee, for AYs 2005-06 & 2006-07, upheld the adjustment which the TPO has made in these two years, towards reimbursement of expenses without mark-up by the assessee to its AE. The Hon’ble ITAT has confirmed

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 804/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

254/- the loss was assessed at Rs.14,30,84,279/-. The Hon’ble ITAT, in the case of the assessee, for AYs 2005-06 & 2006-07, upheld the adjustment which the TPO has made in these two years, towards reimbursement of expenses without mark-up by the assessee to its AE. The Hon’ble ITAT has confirmed

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

price by the TPO and the adjustment made: Arm’s Length Mean Mark-up 29.40% Operating Cost Rs.129,89,30,000/- Arm’s Length Price @129.40% of cost Rs.168,08,20,000/- Price Received Rs.1,38,06,40,000/- Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs.30,01,80,000/- 79. Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 332/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment of contract manufacturing is concerned, is rejected. 14. As regards adjustments made to export turnover and profits of the business in computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act, we find that it consists of the following three adjustments: (i) Deduction of Rs.58,07,090/- from the export turnover due to the assessee’s failure to substantiate

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEM (I) (P) LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 337/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment of contract manufacturing is concerned, is rejected. 14. As regards adjustments made to export turnover and profits of the business in computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act, we find that it consists of the following three adjustments: (i) Deduction of Rs.58,07,090/- from the export turnover due to the assessee’s failure to substantiate

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 333/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment of contract manufacturing is concerned, is rejected. 14. As regards adjustments made to export turnover and profits of the business in computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act, we find that it consists of the following three adjustments: (i) Deduction of Rs.58,07,090/- from the export turnover due to the assessee’s failure to substantiate

MPHASIS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue and the assessment order passed is quashed

ITA 1081/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mphasis Limited, First Floor, Laurel Building, Deputy Commissioner Of Bagmane Technology Park, Cv Income Tax-Circle Vs. Raman Nagar, Karnataka 560093 4(1)(1), Bangalore Pan – Aaacb6820C Appellant Respondent : Shri. K R Vasudevan Advocate & Shri Assessee By Ankur Pd : Dr. Divya K. J - Cit Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-04-2026

For Respondent: Shri. K R Vasudevan Advocate & Shri
Section 10ASection 254Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) issued an order pursuant 17. to Section 92CA(3) read with Section 254 of the Act on January

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)

254 (Allahabad) wherein the Hon’ble High Court took the view that the Tribunal does not have the power to change the addition made under section 68 of the Act and sustain addition under section 69A of the Act. Learned DR on the other hand submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fidelity Business Services

SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of software development 1,67,17,140 services Disallowance under section 14A 69,64,735 Total 6,26,87,179 2.6 It is submitted that the proposed disallowance of deduction under section 10AA was dropped and the deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 10AA was granted. 2.7 Aggrieved by the final assessment order

M/S. WALVOIL FLUID POWER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1839/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

254 of the Act dated 12/10/2018 determined Rs. 2,19,73,114/- as total adjustments to the ALP. The assessee went to DRP against the adjustment made by TPO. Meanwhile, the assessee filed rectification application before TPO on 05.11.2018 and consequently the TPO has passed the order u/s 154 dated 22.01.2019 reducing the TP adjustment from

M/S INFLOW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 3338/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

section 92 of the Act can be applied only in respect of international transactions i.e., transactions with AE. 56. In view of the above transfer pricing provisions and various judicial precedents, we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 5 ITA Nos.3338-3339/Bang/2018. M/s.Inflow Technologies Pvt.Ltd. 4.2.1 In view

M/S INFLOW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 3339/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

section 92 of the Act can be applied only in respect of international transactions i.e., transactions with AE. 56. In view of the above transfer pricing provisions and various judicial precedents, we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 5 ITA Nos.3338-3339/Bang/2018. M/s.Inflow Technologies Pvt.Ltd. 4.2.1 In view

M/S MICROSHIP TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmay Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92CSection 92D

section 254 of the Act, on following grounds of appeal: “The grounds mentioned herein by the Appellant are without prejudice to one another. 1. That the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 4(1)(2), Bangalore ('learned AU'), dated December 21, 2018, to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, contrary

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

Transfer Pricing)-2(2)(1), Bangalore (TPO) passed an order under section 92CA of the Act dated 25.10.2019 determining the arm’s length price in respect of software services segment as under: IT(TP)A Nos.344 & 703/Bang/2021 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 89 Particulars Rs. Arm’s length price 32,34,05,601 Price received

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

Transfer Pricing)-2(2)(1), Bangalore (TPO) passed an order under section 92CA of the Act dated 25.10.2019 determining the arm’s length price in respect of software services segment as under: IT(TP)A Nos.344 & 703/Bang/2021 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 89 Particulars Rs. Arm’s length price 32,34,05,601 Price received

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2334/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

pricing orders for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2010-2011, had held the impugned transaction at arms length. 4.5.3 The A.O. has also disallowed the said expenditure u/s 37 of the I.T.Act considering that it is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. The Assessing Officer has disallowance u/s 37 of the I.T.Act without stating

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2826/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

pricing orders for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2010-2011, had held the impugned transaction at arms length. 4.5.3 The A.O. has also disallowed the said expenditure u/s 37 of the I.T.Act considering that it is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. The Assessing Officer has disallowance u/s 37 of the I.T.Act without stating