BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

22 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 80G(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai71Delhi48Pune24Bangalore22Kolkata22Hyderabad11Rajkot11Chennai10Indore7Jaipur6Agra3Cochin3Jodhpur2Amritsar2Ahmedabad2Nagpur1

Key Topics

Transfer Pricing15Addition to Income15Deduction11Section 278Section 268Section 271(1)(c)8Section 234B8Section 234D8Penalty8

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transfer pricing adjustment at the entity level instead of restricting the adjustment to the cost of international transaction. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 2.1 The Honorable DRP and the Learned AO have erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of INR 37,250 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

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

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

TDS8
Section 26
Section 36

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

ITA 189/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 115JSection 40A(7)Section 43BSection 80GSection 92B

Transfer Pricing Grounds 13. The DRP/AO erred in law and on facts in making a disallowance under Section 80G of the Act of Rs. 5

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

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

ITA 370/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

80G of Rs. 4,05,98,408/- and 80IAB of Rs. 585,09,09,819/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee also responded to the notices. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10AA being profit of SEZ units. The total income also comprises

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

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 205/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 68/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 559/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

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

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 881/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 2890/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 2301/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 387/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 3430/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S. LOWES SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 275/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Divya, CIT(DR)
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

transfer pricing adjustment are dismissed as infructuous. 5. Regarding the other grounds, i.e., Grounds Nos. 12 to 15 relating to corporate issues, the learned AR submitted that the benefit under section 80G

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

ITA 191/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (D.R)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

transfer of its Product Engineering Services Business (PES) Unit to L&T Technology Services Ltd. w.e.f. January 1, 2014 as part of the business restructuring undertaken within the Larsen & Toubro group. Though the initiation started from 1-1-2014 but the whole effect of the transaction was during the year under consideration. Further, Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. during the year

LOWES SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1),, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1734/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

Transfer pricing issue of interest on overdue receivable remained with upward TP adjustment of Rs.1,98,60,669, deduction claimed u/s. 80G of Rs.76,48,794 and disallowance u/s. 36(1) (va) of Rs.132,825. 11. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are general in nature. No arguments were advanced and therefore the same are dismissed. 12. Ground No.3 is adjustment on account

NTT DATA INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 293/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables amounting to INR 1,09,74,490; 9.2 Without prejudice to our ground of appeal no. 9.1 above, Ld. AO/TPO pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred, in law and facts, by not appreciating that the outstanding trade receivables from its AEs arise from the provision

TARGET CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1613/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 92C

transfer pricing agreement and modified return of income filed by the assessee which is available on record. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 5 is that the AO / ld. DRP erred in not allowing the deduction of ₹ 1,17,36,000.00 being

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional