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.

166 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 144C(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,796Mumbai1,639Bangalore794Pune254Hyderabad248Kolkata203Chennai166Ahmedabad124Visakhapatnam32Chandigarh30Jaipur28Cochin25Indore16Karnataka16Dehradun15Rajkot13Surat12Cuttack8Telangana4Panaji4Amritsar3SC3Guwahati2Raipur2Kerala2Calcutta1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)131Transfer Pricing70Section 92C49Addition to Income46Section 144C(5)41Comparables/TP39Section 14A36Disallowance31Section 40

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

transfer pricing adjustments have been made under sub-section (3) of section 92CA of the Act, the Assessing Officer {AO) is required to forward a draft assessment order to the eligible assessee, if he proposed to make any variation in the :-12-: ITA. No:698/Chny/2024 income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. Such eligible

Showing 1–20 of 166 · Page 1 of 9

...
21
Section 144C19
TP Method18
Section 14714

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.319/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Conferencecall – The Dy. Commissioner- Services India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No.135, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle-1(2), Old Airport Road, Chennai. Bangalore-560 017. [Pan: Aaccc 6574 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adhak (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Transfer Pricing Officers tend to take a conservative view. The correction of such view takes very long time with the existing appellate structure. With a view to provide speedy disposal, it is proposed to amend the Income-tax Act so as to create an alternative dispute resolution mechanism within the Income-tax Department and accordingly, section 144C has been proposed

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PUDUCHERRY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

10) of Section 144C of the Act, every direction issued by the DRP shall be binding on the AO. As per sub-section (13) of section 144C of the Act, upon receipt of the directions under sub-section (5) from DRP, the AO shall inconformity with the directions of the DRP, complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 586/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Transfer Pricing Officer or Dispute Resolution Panel, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer are set aside and the Assessing Officer shall refer the matter again to the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel shall examine the agreement between the parties and other transactions

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PARRYWARE ROCA PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1169/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Transfer Pricing Officer or Dispute Resolution Panel, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer are set aside and the Assessing Officer shall refer the matter again to the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel shall examine the agreement between the parties and other transactions

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

144C(5) of the Act dated 12.01.2016 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in ITA No.322/Mds/2016 passed order vide dated 30.06.2016 partly allowing the assessee’s appeal and the result of the appeal is as under:- (i) Ground on transfer pricing adjustment was dismissed. (ii) Ground on loss claimed on unrealized foreign exchange was allowed. (iii) Ground in regard

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

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

ITA 1010/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1010/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eaton Power Quality Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Pondicherry Circle, Puducherry 605 111, Pondicherry. Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 35/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Eaton Power Quality Private The Assessing Officer, Limited, V. National E-Assessment Centre, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Delhi. Puducherry 605 111, Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate : Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

Section 153 expires’. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31.10.2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also indicates the date by which the Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders

PANASONIC CORPORATION,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1483/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT

Transfer Pricing Officer as required under Section 92CA(4) of the Act, preferred to pass a draft assessment order as provided in Section 144C(1) of the Act, whether the assessee is challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act instead of passing order under Section 92CA

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

144C(5) of the Act (“impugned order”) inter-alia on the following grounds: In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: 1. The impugned order and directions of the Hon’ble DRP are based on incorrect appreciation of facts and wrong interpretation of law and therefore, are bad in law. 2. The Ld. AO has erred

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on January 24, 2013. The AO further proceeded to complete the assessment and passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order on March 28, 2013 incorporating the adjustment suggested by the TPO and forwarded a copy to the assessee . The assessee filed its objections before the Dispute

SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NCC 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 1505/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

10. According to the Ld AR, since the transfer pricing proceedings were barred by limitation of time, the order dated 01.11.2019 is void-ab-initio and accordingly, the transfer pricing adjustment is non-est. Consequently, the Assessee cease to be an eligible assessee as defined under section 144C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CHENNAI vs. SAINT - GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 1672/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

10. According to the Ld AR, since the transfer pricing proceedings were barred by limitation of time, the order dated 01.11.2019 is void-ab-initio and accordingly, the transfer pricing adjustment is non-est. Consequently, the Assessee cease to be an eligible assessee as defined under section 144C

M/S. DORLING KINDERSLEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1022/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144cSection 153

section 144C of the Act itself state that the AO shall October 01, 2009. He laid emphasis on the words “on or after October 01, 2009” in the provision, he says, means any procedure that are pending as on 01.10.2009, the new procedure adopted u/s.144C of the Act, will apply to all the assessee across i.e. those comes under transfer

PFIZER HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1-LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the corporate additions made in the assessment order would not survive

ITA 641/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.641/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Limited Dcit (Formerly Known As Hospira Healthcare India Corporate Circle-5(2)-Ltu, बनाम/ Private Limited) Chennai. Vs. 237, Emerald Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabco-2190-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 14ASection 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 2(24)Section 31Section 35Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment would be non-est. Consequently, the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee as defined u/s 144C(15)(b) of the Act and therefore, the machinery provisions of Section 144C of the Act would not get triggered in the assessee’s case. In such a scenario, the assessment in the case of the assessee ought

AALAYA JEWEL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 971/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Miss S.Deepa, C.A ""For Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT, D.R
Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(4)Section 249(3)Section 253(5)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA ; and (ii) any foreign company.” Vide sub-section (2) of above Section and eligible assessee has an option to file, either his acceptance of the variation proposed in the draft assessment order to the ld. Assessing Officer, or if he objects to file objections. If he chooses to file

AALAYA JEWEL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 970/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Miss S.Deepa, C.A ""For Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT, D.R
Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(4)Section 249(3)Section 253(5)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA ; and (ii) any foreign company.” Vide sub-section (2) of above Section and eligible assessee has an option to file, either his acceptance of the variation proposed in the draft assessment order to the ld. Assessing Officer, or if he objects to file objections. If he chooses to file

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 393/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.393/Chny/2018 & आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.89/Chny/2018 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Titan Company Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income No.3, Spicot Industrial Complex, Vs. Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. Ltu-2, [Pan: Aaact 5131A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana &For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92C

144C(1) of the Act dated 25.09.2017 & 24.09.2018, respectively. ITA No.393/Chny/2018 for A.Y 2013-14 and ITA No.89/Chny/2018 for A.Y 2014-15 2. Since the assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (‘AEs' in short), the same have been referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO' in short) DC/ACIT(TP)-3(2), Chennai for determination