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.

61 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 297clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi261Karnataka247Mumbai217Bangalore61Calcutta50Chandigarh49Chennai48Jaipur40Cochin38Ahmedabad33Pune28Hyderabad22Kolkata21Raipur18Rajkot11Nagpur10Lucknow9Surat8Panaji4Indore4SC4Jodhpur4Agra3Cuttack3Rajasthan2Jabalpur2Telangana2Patna1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income39Section 92C35Transfer Pricing27Section 1121Section 143(3)20Section 132(4)20Section 10A14Deduction14Disallowance

M/S UNISYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2096/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

transferred to the Arbitration Tribunal.” 22. From Section 153, the regular time for passing the assessment order ends on 31.12.2018 and with extension on the matter being referred to TPO, the time limit to pass assessment order would lapse on 31.12.2019. What is not to 10 ITAs No.2025 & 2096/Bang/2017. M/s.Unisys India Private Limited. be forgotten, while interpreting a taxing statute

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. UNISYS INDIA PVT LTD, BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4

13
Section 80G12
Comparables/TP12
Section 12A11

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2025/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

transferred to the Arbitration Tribunal.” 22. From Section 153, the regular time for passing the assessment order ends on 31.12.2018 and with extension on the matter being referred to TPO, the time limit to pass assessment order would lapse on 31.12.2019. What is not to 10 ITAs No.2025 & 2096/Bang/2017. M/s.Unisys India Private Limited. be forgotten, while interpreting a taxing statute

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

297 because he was of the view as per the 1st proviso to 92CA(4), the Assessee would not be entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A of the Act. The relevant provisions of Sec.10A(4) and 1st proviso thereto reads as follows:- “(4) Where an arm's length price is determined by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), the Assessing

NXP INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2861/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

pricing adjustment of Rs.8,36,07,533. However, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) excluded ICRI Techno Analytics Limited and confirmed 9 comparables out of the above 10 comparables. Accordingly, he sustained TP adjustment to the tune of Rs.7,06,09,072. 5.3 Now the assessee has challenged for the exclusion of the following five comparables:- (i) Persystent Systems Limited

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)

section 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one percent of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three percent of the latter in all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed

CAE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1150/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.1150/Bang/2015: Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.316/Bang/2016: Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Cae India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of Survey No.26-27, Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) V. Bandaramanahalli Village, Bangalore. Anneshwara Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore – 562 110. Pan : Aaecm3338G. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.585/Kol/2015: Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.310/Bang/2016: Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Dy.Commissioner Of Income- M/S.Cae India Private Limited Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) Survey No.26-27, V. Bangalore. / Circle 2(1) Kolkata. Bandaramanahalli Village, Anneshwara Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore – 562 110. (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.31/Kol/2015: Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Cae India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of Survey No.26-27, Income-Tax, Circle 2(1) V. Bandaramanahalli Village, Kolkata. Anneshwara Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore – 562 110. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri. Sumeet Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Sri.Rajendra Kumar Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2021 Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021

For Appellant: Sri. Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajendra Kumar Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

297 in relation to transaction of corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses, holding that the international transactions does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act. In doing so, the Ld. DRP grossly erred in: 2.1. Holding that corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of stewardship activities. 2.2. Disregarding the genuineness

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 310/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.1150/Bang/2015: Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.316/Bang/2016: Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Cae India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of Survey No.26-27, Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) V. Bandaramanahalli Village, Bangalore. Anneshwara Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore – 562 110. Pan : Aaecm3338G. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.585/Kol/2015: Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.310/Bang/2016: Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Dy.Commissioner Of Income- M/S.Cae India Private Limited Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) Survey No.26-27, V. Bangalore. / Circle 2(1) Kolkata. Bandaramanahalli Village, Anneshwara Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore – 562 110. (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.31/Kol/2015: Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Cae India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of Survey No.26-27, Income-Tax, Circle 2(1) V. Bandaramanahalli Village, Kolkata. Anneshwara Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore – 562 110. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri. Sumeet Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Sri.Rajendra Kumar Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2021 Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021

For Appellant: Sri. Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajendra Kumar Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

297 in relation to transaction of corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses, holding that the international transactions does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act. In doing so, the Ld. DRP grossly erred in: 2.1. Holding that corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of stewardship activities. 2.2. Disregarding the genuineness

CAE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 316/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.1150/Bang/2015: Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.316/Bang/2016: Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Cae India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of Survey No.26-27, Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) V. Bandaramanahalli Village, Bangalore. Anneshwara Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore – 562 110. Pan : Aaecm3338G. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.585/Kol/2015: Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.310/Bang/2016: Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Dy.Commissioner Of Income- M/S.Cae India Private Limited Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) Survey No.26-27, V. Bangalore. / Circle 2(1) Kolkata. Bandaramanahalli Village, Anneshwara Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore – 562 110. (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.31/Kol/2015: Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Cae India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of Survey No.26-27, Income-Tax, Circle 2(1) V. Bandaramanahalli Village, Kolkata. Anneshwara Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore – 562 110. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri. Sumeet Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Sri.Rajendra Kumar Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2021 Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021

For Appellant: Sri. Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajendra Kumar Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

297 in relation to transaction of corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses, holding that the international transactions does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act. In doing so, the Ld. DRP grossly erred in: 2.1. Holding that corporate management services and reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of stewardship activities. 2.2. Disregarding the genuineness

SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

ITA 596/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

transferred to the Arbitration Tribunal.” 22. From Section 153, the regular time for passing the assessment order ends on 31.12.2018 and with extension on the matter being referred to TPO, the time limit to pass assessment order would lapse on 31.12.2019. What is not to be forgotten, while interpreting a taxing statute, is the explicit and clear language used

SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

ITA 418/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

transferred to the Arbitration Tribunal.” 22. From Section 153, the regular time for passing the assessment order ends on 31.12.2018 and with extension on the matter being referred to TPO, the time limit to pass assessment order would lapse on 31.12.2019. What is not to be forgotten, while interpreting a taxing statute, is the explicit and clear language used

STERLING COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1497/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

transfer pricing provisions to include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert whether or not it is formal or in writing or whether or not it is intended to be enforceable by legal proceeding. There is no reference to any transaction having necessarily including profit element or IT(TP)A No.1497/Bang/2010 Page 24 of 37 mark

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1319/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 92C

section 80G of the Act was not substantiated. IT(TP)A No.1319(B)/2011 10 2.5 Ld.AO observed that assessee entered into international transaction with its associated enterprises, and therefore for determining arms length price of international transaction, case was referred to Ld.TPO. 2.5.1 Ld.TPO upon receipt of reference called for economic analysis of international transaction entered into by assessee

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S AMETEK INSTRUMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, the revenue appeal is dismissed and C

ITA 398/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A No.398/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(5)Section 92B

Transfer pricing adjustment 3,58,37,905 Total 7,51,12,785 8. The contention of the A.R. is that marketing support services provided to the AE are different from the AMC services provided to third party customers. He drew our attention to the segment revenue & costs from page 9 to 12 of the written submissions as follows: 9.1 Facts

AMETEK INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, the revenue appeal is dismissed and C

ITA 499/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A No.398/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(5)Section 92B

Transfer pricing adjustment 3,58,37,905 Total 7,51,12,785 8. The contention of the A.R. is that marketing support services provided to the AE are different from the AMC services provided to third party customers. He drew our attention to the segment revenue & costs from page 9 to 12 of the written submissions as follows: 9.1 Facts

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 153A

price of the property and sale takes place only after completion of the project and assessee’s share of sale consideration is identified. The proposed sale agreement cannot be put into action due to various litigations pending with various levels. Nobody can transfer the title of the property when assessee itself is owing the landed property. Being so, no project

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 295/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 153A

price of the property and sale takes place only after completion of the project and assessee’s share of sale consideration is identified. The proposed sale agreement cannot be put into action due to various litigations pending with various levels. Nobody can transfer the title of the property when assessee itself is owing the landed property. Being so, no project

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 296/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 153A

price of the property and sale takes place only after completion of the project and assessee’s share of sale consideration is identified. The proposed sale agreement cannot be put into action due to various litigations pending with various levels. Nobody can transfer the title of the property when assessee itself is owing the landed property. Being so, no project

M/S THOMSON REUTERS INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1565/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR-II)
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 7A

Transfer Pricing Related 7. (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer and the learned DRP erred in denying deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of UB Plaza Software Technology Parks of India (`STPI') Unit. (b) That the learned Assessing Officer and the learned DRP failed to appreciate that

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

section 144C(5) of the Act ("DRP Directions"), is beyond jurisdiction, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and invalid. IT(TP)A No.300/Bang/2021 Page 15 of 44 2. The Ld. AO erred in passing the Impugned Order without giving effect to the relief granted to the Appellant by the Hon'ble DRP in relation to the transfer pricing

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

297/- (iii) Notional interest in respect of the delayed receivables - Rs. 7,29,62,864/- 3. Initially, a draft assessment order dated 26.11.2019 came to be passed by the Assessing Officer, in which the aforesaid TP adjustments were incorporated. Further, the Assessing Officer proposed a disallowance of the claim made by the assessee under Section 80G, on the ground that