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.

32 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai130Delhi81Ahmedabad71Chandigarh64Chennai52Hyderabad34Kolkata32Bangalore32Jaipur19Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam10Raipur10Pune8Indore5Lucknow5Karnataka4Guwahati3SC3Surat3Cuttack2Amritsar2Cochin2Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 10B32Transfer Pricing25Disallowance16Addition to Income16Section 143(3)14Comparables/TP14Section 143(1)9Section 143(2)9Section 92C

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21
Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported\nunder sub section (2) of Section 270A of the Act whereas\ndisallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the\nAct was considered under reported is in consequence of\nmisreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act.\n5.2 For the purpose of evaluating

M/S. RADISYS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RADISYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

9
Deduction9
Section 36(1)(va)8
Section 43B5

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

transfer pricing exercise would therefore fail. Therefore in keeping with the OECD guidelines, endeavor should be made to bring in comparable companies for the purpose of broad comparison. Therefore the working capital adjustment as claimed by the Assessee should be allowed. We hold and direct accordingly.” 16. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the working capital adjustment

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

ITA 1539/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 234ASection 270A

transfer pricing. In holding so, the learned DRP referred various case laws. 21. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned DRP/AO/TPO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 22. The learned AR before us argued that the TPO erred in benchmarking the outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction and proposing an adjustment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S AGILA SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 179/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] for determination of arm’s length price [ALP] under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. Simultaneously, the assessment proceedings were initiated under section 143(2) of the Act. The AO issued a draft assessment order dated 28.02.2014 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act, wherein the total income

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 214/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] for determination of arm’s length price [ALP] under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. Simultaneously, the assessment proceedings were initiated under section 143(2) of the Act. The AO issued a draft assessment order dated 28.02.2014 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act, wherein the total income

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 208/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Srivastava, CIT
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Section 43B(b) would have no effect on the additions of the sums covered u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va). 23.The DRP erred in deleting the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI Funds without appreciating the clarification brought out by the CBDT at paragraph 5, vide its latest circular No.22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 Page

M/S ENSTAGE SOFTWARE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 583/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 92C(2)

section 36 (1) (va) of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by proposed additions, assessee filed objections before DRP. 9. DRP upheld comparables selected by Ld.TPO and rejected challenge in respect of reworking of margin of assessee by holding that, assessee did not substantiate basis of cost allocation. Page 7 of 18 IT(TP)A No.583/Bang/2017 10. Ld. AO upon receipt

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

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

ITA 1587/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Mr. Aliasgar Rampurawala, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

transfer pricing analysis, the purpose is not to compare profit of the tested party with that of the comparables but the purpose is to compare the prices charged by the tested, party with the prices charged by the comparables although when TNMM is adopted as MA.M, the process of such price comparison is by comparing profits of tested party with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. M/S. ADCOCK INGRAM LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2053/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.2052 & 2053/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharath L., A.R

Transfer Pricing 1(1)(1), Bengaluru vide remand report dt 08.05.2019, remarked that the tax payers margin being higher than the comparable's margin, suggested no adjustment. 5.9 Considering the same, respectfully following the binding decisions of the Hon'ble by Bangalore ITAT in appellants own case(supra), I am of the view that at entity level the tax payers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ADCOCK INGRAM LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2052/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.2052 & 2053/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharath L., A.R

Transfer Pricing 1(1)(1), Bengaluru vide remand report dt 08.05.2019, remarked that the tax payers margin being higher than the comparable's margin, suggested no adjustment. 5.9 Considering the same, respectfully following the binding decisions of the Hon'ble by Bangalore ITAT in appellants own case(supra), I am of the view that at entity level the tax payers

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 174/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, D.R
Section 144(3)Section 37Section 92C

36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. 4.2. The learned AO erred in not following the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 185 on the same question of law. 4.3. The learned AO has erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the appellant

NAGRAVISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1536/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Pradhan Dass, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR-I)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Transfer Pricing -2(2)(1) ("TPO") / Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore ("DRP") erred on facts and in law in making various additions and disallowances to the income of the appellant in the assessment order dated 31.05.2017 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") by denying different claims and/or relief, quantification

MCAFEE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 110/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Later, the Draft Assessment Order (DAO) was passed on 30.09.2021, wherein the adjustment made u/s 143(1) of the Act was not incorporated. In the draft assessment order, the A.O. had incorporated the T.P. adjustment IT(TP)A No.110/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 9 proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and disallowance

L3 COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1938/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va). Transfer Pricing. 5. The learned DRP has erred in upholding and enhancing the transfer pricing adjustment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2260/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

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 analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

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 analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

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 2333/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

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

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2473/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1294/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(6)Section 244A

va bl e o r any ot h er de bt a rising d uri ng the course of busin es s. ” 25. 3 A re adin g of the af ores ai d cla us e f rom t he Expl anation woul d m ake i t clear t hat th e corp orat e guara