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.

6 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai32Delhi30Bangalore6Kolkata5Ahmedabad4Visakhapatnam3Jaipur1Pune1SC1Telangana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 92C6Transfer Pricing5Addition to Income5Section 2014Section 10A4Comparables/TP4Disallowance4Section 143(3)3Section 271(1)(c)

INGERSOLL - RAND (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaisl. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment No. Year 1 It(Tp)A M/S. Ingersoll Rand Assistant Commissioner 2011 – 12 442/Bang/2016 (India) Ltd., Of Income – Tax, Plot No. 35, Circle – 3 (1) (1), Kiadb Industrial Area, Bangalore. Bidadi, Bangalore – 562 109. Pan No : Aaaci3099Q 2 It(Tpa) Assistant Commissioner M/S. Ingersoll Rand 2011 – 12 614/Bang/2016 Of Income – Tax, (India) Ltd., Circle – 3 (1) (1), Plot No. 35, Bangalore. Kiadb Industrial Area, Bidadi, Bangalore – 562 109. Pan No : Aaaci3099Q 3 It(Tp)A Assistant Commissioner M/S. Ingersoll Rand 2011 – 12 615/Bang/2016 Of Income – Tax, International (India) Ltd., Circle – 3 (1) (1), Plot No. 35, Kiadb Bangalore. Industrial Area, Bidadi, Bangalore – 562 109. Pan No : Aaaci3099Q 4 Co M/S. Ingersoll Rand Assistant Commissioner 2011 – 12 97/Bang/2017 International (India) Ltd., Of Income – Tax, (Arising Out Of Plot No. 35, Kiadb Circle – 3 (1) (1), It(Tp)A Industrial Area, Bidadi, Bangalore. 615/Bang/2016) Bangalore – 562 109. Pan No : Aaaci3099Q 5 It(Tp)A M/S. Ingersoll Rand Assistant Commissioner 2011 – 12 650/Bang/2016 International (India) Ltd., Of Income – Tax, Plot No. 35, Kiadb Circle – 3 (1) (1), Industrial Area, Bidadi, Bangalore. Bangalore – 562 109. Pan No : Aaaci3099Q

For Appellant: Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT – DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

section 271C for failure to deduct TDS on Rs.9,00,50,109/-. Against proposed additions, on transfer pricing and corporate

3
Deduction3
Depreciation3
Section 143(2)2

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 23/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. As regards grounds No.4, 5 & 6 are concerned; we find that they relate to corporate matters. 16. As regards ground No.4(a) is concerned, brief facts are that during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee had paid income

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 61/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. As regards grounds No.4, 5 & 6 are concerned; we find that they relate to corporate matters. 16. As regards ground No.4(a) is concerned, brief facts are that during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee had paid income

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

price at 25.25%. Even though, DRP refused to interfere with the objections of the assessee in its order, we were informed that DRP has directed the TPO/A.O. not to make any negative working capital adjustment in some of the cases in the next assessment year, in the cases of Market Tools Research P. Ltd., and Mega Systems Worldwide India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1) BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED, VIRGIN ISLANDS

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

ITA 2431/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271CSection 274Section 275

section 275 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in not disposing the appeal based on the merits of the case holding that penalty cannot be levied when the assessment order is the subject matter of appeal before Hon'ble High Court? 3. In the facts

M/S NITESH ESTATES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3135/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 195Section 201

271C and Sec 221 of the Act, but not for the proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Therefore,Ld. CIT(A) found no force in the arguments of the assessee. This ground was therefore dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). 3.2 Regarding applicability of section 198(5) of the Act and regarding assessee being “assessee in default