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.

138 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi859Mumbai748Bangalore598Kolkata182Pune159Chennai138Ahmedabad124Hyderabad123Karnataka73Jaipur37Lucknow20Cuttack15Cochin15Visakhapatnam14Indore11Amritsar9Surat9Telangana8Ranchi6Guwahati6Chandigarh5Calcutta5Agra4Nagpur4Varanasi4Panaji2Orissa2Jodhpur2Rajkot2Raipur1SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)84Transfer Pricing58Section 80I48Comparables/TP41Deduction35Disallowance34Addition to Income33Section 92C30Section 10A28

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1078/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144C(5)

section 92CB which provides for the "safe harbour" rules for determination of the arm's length price, can be applied only if the transfer pricing adjustment involves substitution of the transaction price with the arm's length price. Rules 10B

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FLAKT (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 1032/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 138 · Page 1 of 7

Section 14A27
Section 4023
Section 801A23
ITAT Chennai
09 Jun 2016
AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1032/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CITFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Hirani, CA

transfer pricing adjustment. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for method of determining the arm's length price under Section

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

transfer pricing regulations also require that it is not the 'form' but the the 'form' but the overall arrangement/ substance of the transactions that must be kept in mind. overall arrangement/ substance of the transactions that must be kept in mind. overall arrangement/ substance of the transactions that must be kept in mind. Section 92F (v) of the Income Section

DCIT, PONDICHERRY vs. TWEEZERMAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., PONDICHERRY

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

ITA 2401/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CITFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, C.A
Section 10BSection 92Section 92(3)Section 92C

10B of the Act. 4. On the contrary, Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that admittedly the Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm's length price less than the sale price declared by the assessee. Referring to Section

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3137/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3137/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

section 234C of the Act. 10. The Ld. AO has erred, in law and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice of each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 632/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD., CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 92 of the Act. The appellant relies on the reasoning and conclusion of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. 8. Without prejudice to the above contention regarding inapplicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to the appellant company, the appellant submits as follows: (i) Referring to the Statement of Facts and Ground No.I.2(a) of the Grounds of Appeal it is submitted that

POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1218/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri N. Venkatraman, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 10A

transfer pricing as provided in Indian Income-tax Act. Section 92B of the Act defines “international transaction”. “Associated Enterprise” is defined in Section 92A of the Act. Rule 10B

POLARIS CONSULTING & SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 615/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri N. Venkatraman, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 10A

transfer pricing as provided in Indian Income-tax Act. Section 92B of the Act defines “international transaction”. “Associated Enterprise” is defined in Section 92A of the Act. Rule 10B

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. POLARIS CONSULTING & SERVICES P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 765/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1218/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.615/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri N. Venkatraman, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 10A

transfer pricing as provided in Indian Income-tax Act. Section 92B of the Act defines “international transaction”. “Associated Enterprise” is defined in Section 92A of the Act. Rule 10B

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (OSD),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2546/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2546/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax (Osd), 4/249A, Rasim Enclave, Corporate Circle –1(2), Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Near Savitha Dental College, Goparasanallur, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. Pan: Aaccc7628P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2017

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 10. The learned AO has erred, in law and In facts, In initiating penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act; 3. The Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cook Group Inc, USA which provides medical equipment services for its parent company. Cook India

DOOWON AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1016/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1016/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Doowon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No.B-19 & 20, Sipcot V. Income Tax, Industrial Park, Oragadam, Corporate Circle – 1(1), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai - 600 034. Kancheepuram District-602 105. Pan : Aaccd 4172 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT

10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962, the v. ACIT (2009) 30 SOT 319, the Ld.counsel submitted that the business model of the assessee has to be taken into consideration while comparing the comparable companies. The Pune Bench did not agree with the Transfer Pricing Officer that every time the assessee pays higher import duty, it must be passed

RECKITT BENCKISER SCHOLL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 756/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.756/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Reckitt Benckiser Scholl The Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited V. Income Tax, (Formerly Known As M/S. Corporate Circle – V (1), Reckitt Benekiser Scholl India Chennai Limited). Plot F 73/74, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram – 602 117

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for determining the ALP adjustment. The TPO has characterized the assessee as a contract manufacturer assuming minimum risk. The assessee is tested party and the assessee adopted TNMMs as most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of import and export of foot

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1420/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

10B of the Income Tax rules. More so, the PLI of the assessee is at 4.84% as compared to the comparables at 3.77%. Further, considering economic adjustments such as customs duty and idle capacity adjustment, the margin of the assessee would be up to 13.28%, which was accepted by TPO as the PLI is higher than the comparables. Even considering

GAMESA RENEWABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 376/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

10B of the Income Tax rules. More so, the PLI of the assessee is at 4.84% as compared to the comparables at 3.77%. Further, considering economic adjustments such as customs duty and idle capacity adjustment, the margin of the assessee would be up to 13.28%, which was accepted by TPO as the PLI is higher than the comparables. Even considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

ITA 433/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 Prabhu Spining Mills Private 121, Adarns Plaza, Vs. Limited, 60, Feet Road, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 602. Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

transfer of electricity to be Rs.10,69,94,336/- which in effect lead to the section 80-IA claim of the assessee being reduced by Rs.7,71,64,134/- (Rs.18,41,58,470 less Rs.10,69,94,336). 7. Aggrieved, the said issue was raised in appeal before the first appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPUR vs. SRI SHANMUGAVEL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1048/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Saddik Ahmed, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

transfer of electricity to be Rs.10,69,94,336/- which in effect lead to the section 80-IA claim of the assessee being reduced by Rs.7,71,64,134/- (Rs.18,41,58,470 less Rs.10,69,94,336). 7. Aggrieved, the said issue was raised in appeal before the first appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

NIPPON PAINT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 779/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.779/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: Mr.Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92C(1)

section 92C(1) of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’). 2.5 Erred on facts by comparing the Appellant with the well established companies in applying the BLT. Further, erred on facts and in law in making transfer pricing