Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

1,176 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,780 Mumbai2,757 Bangalore1,176 Chennai576 Ahmedabad534 Kolkata502 Hyderabad408 Karnataka376 Jaipur316 Pune307 Indore194 Surat186 Chandigarh167 Cochin151 Rajkot87 Visakhapatnam65 SC64 Calcutta60 Lucknow47 Telangana45 Raipur38 Amritsar31 Agra30 Nagpur29 Cuttack29 Guwahati25 Jodhpur18 Dehradun10 Varanasi9 Kerala9 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN8 Jabalpur8 Rajasthan8 Ranchi8 Panaji5 Orissa5 Allahabad4 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Andhra Pradesh1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Patna1 S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1 DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)64 Addition to Income61 Transfer Pricing44 Section 14843 Comparables/TP36 Section 153A34 Section 92C32 Disallowance26 Section 133A

SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1481/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT – DR -I

Section 144C(5)

40. On the first ground, this court notes that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, under section 37, and the Transfer Pricing

M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

ITA 84/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Showing 1–20 of 1,176 · Page 1 of 59

...

25

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

ITA 63/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

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)

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. IT(TP)A No.2846/Bang/2017 M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 47 b) The Ld. Panel and the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. 4. Negative working capital adjustment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

Transfer Pricing order with the proposed adjustment, the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order on 24/03/2013 under section 144C(1) of the Act. In the draft assessment order so passed the Ld.AO:- • disallowed depreciation on computer software at Rs.7,46,162/- for non-deduction of TDS; • disallowed payments on which TDS was not deducted under section 40

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

section 92CA The difference of Rs. 40,93,660/- as determined above is the transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1307/BANG/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

section 92CA The difference of Rs. 40,93,660/- as determined above is the transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1306/BANG/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

section 92CA The difference of Rs. 40,93,660/- as determined above is the transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1308/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

section 92CA The difference of Rs. 40,93,660/- as determined above is the transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA

M/S TYCO ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal being IT(TP)A No

ITA 1251/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

section 143(1) of the Act to the company. 37. The assessee has filed an application dated 27-06-2019 for admission of the following additional ground; IT(TP)A No.1350 & 1251(B)/201 21 “The ld.TPO and the ld.DRP failed to appreciate the difference in rates of depreciation adopted by the appellant and the comparable companies as selected

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 12B(2) provides that the amount of capital gain shall be computed after making certain deductions from the "full value of the consideration for which the sale, exchange or transfer of the capital asset is made." In the case of a sale, the full value of the consideration is the full sale 40 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. price

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 146/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Ravichandran, CIT-III (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92ASection 92E

Section 92B(2) by the Finance Act, 2014 was inserted only by way of abundant caution. It is made with a view to clarify the position that by entering into series of transactions with third parties who are not associated enterprises or non- residents, one cannot claim that the Transfer Pricing regulations were not applicable, if in reality

M/S. ATMECS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 187/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, M J Towers, H-No.8-2-698, Ward -1(1)(1), Road No.12, Bengaluru. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 034. Pan : Aamca 0792 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.3.2021 By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Associated Enterprises

For Appellant: Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Arunkumar, CIT(TP-2)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

section of the UN TP Manual which states as under: "...10.3.1.3. The regulation prescribes mandatory annual filing requirements as well as maintenance of contemporaneous documentation by the taxpayer in case international transactions between associated enterprises cross a threshold and contains stringent penalty implications in case of noncompliance. The primary onus of proving arm's length price of the transaction lies

MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

section 92 CA requires the Ld.AO to refer such transaction that exceeds ₹ 5 crore to the transfer pricing officer. Page 14 of 22 IT(TP)A No. 283/Bang/2021 A reference made by the Ld.AO needs to be analysed as per para 3.3 of the instruction number 3, only if the appeal is selected for scrutiny for non-transfer pricing risk

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

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

transfer pricing adjustment is liable to be deleted in entirety. Grounds on disallowance under section 14A 10. The learned assessing officer has erred in computing disallowance of Rs. 3,30,96,246 under section Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) read with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income tax rules

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, consequently, the final assessment order dated 29 January, 2015 is also barred by limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Act, thus making the final assessment order illegal, bad in law, null and void

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, consequently, the final assessment order dated 29 January, 2015 is also barred by limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Act, thus making the final assessment order illegal, bad in law, null and void

ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/BANG/2023[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing provisions. In fact, Section 92(3) of the Act, specifically prohibits determination of TP adjustment which has the effect of reducing the income chargeable to tax in India. By virtue of the adjustment, the Ld.TPO has in effect acted contrary to Section 92(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the adjustments made u/s. 92CA are without

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing provisions. In fact, Section 92(3) of the Act, specifically prohibits determination of TP adjustment which has the effect of reducing the income chargeable to tax in India. By virtue of the adjustment, the Ld.TPO has in effect acted contrary to Section 92(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the adjustments made u/s. 92CA are without

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

transfer pricing adjustment is not expected to be made by deducing from the difference between the 'excessive' AMP expenditure incurred by the Assessee and the AMP expenditure of a comparable entity that an international transaction exists and then proceeding to make the adjustment of the difference in order to determine the value of such AMP expenditure incurred