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.

33 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi570Mumbai431Bangalore212Ahmedabad81Pune59Hyderabad49Kolkata43Chennai33Jaipur22Lucknow17Raipur17Agra14Rajkot12Indore7Visakhapatnam7Chandigarh6Nagpur5Surat5Cuttack3Ranchi3Cochin3Jodhpur2Guwahati2SC1Amritsar1Telangana1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)30Section 3516Disallowance16Section 14A15Transfer Pricing15Section 14712Comparables/TP11Section 144C(5)8Section 2638

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

transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.1,05,28,594/-. 4.1. The Ld. AO/TPO/ DRP have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting the foreign AEs as the tested party and selecting the Appellant as the tested party. 4.2. The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP has erred, in laws and facts, by rejecting transaction net margin method as the most appropriate method

HARLAND CLARKE HOLDING SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(2), CHENN

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

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

Deduction8
Addition to Income8
TP Method7
ITA 113/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.V.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vara,CIT,D.R

sections 234B & 234C of the Act and Ground No.15 was against the initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds Nos.14 & 15 were not argued by ld.A.R. Consequently, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. In regard to the transfer pricing

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

Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment amounting to INR 16,73,97,818 pertaining to the international transaction of receipt of corporate support services: 4.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred in making an upward TP :-3-: IT(TP)A. No: 35/Chny/2021 & ITA No: 1010/Chny/2017 adjustment

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIPERAMBUDUR vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 361/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.361/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Renault India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No.37 & 38, Fourth Floor, V. Income Tax, Asv Ramana Towers, Company Circle V(3), Venkatanarayana Road, Chennai - 600 034. T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. Pan : Aadcr 2042 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT

Section 234C of the Act and the issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re- examine the issue afresh and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 17. The next issue arises for consideration is with regard to adjustment proposed by the Dispute

HOWDEN SOLYVENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 732/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kripalani (Advocate) &For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar- CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 43B

Section 234B and 234D of the Act is consequential in nature.” Ground No.1 is general in nature. Ground No.8 has not pressed before us. Ground No.9 assails levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C. The same is consequential in nature which do not require any specific adjudication. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 are related with Transfer Pricing

TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HOSUR vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2239/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana (Sr. Advocate) for Ms. Manasa Ananthan (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92A(1)

pricing adjustments Ground 2: Disallowance under section 14A of the Act Rs. 263,415 a. The leaned DRP has erred in confirming the order of the AO by disallowing expenses under section 14A, on the basis of Rule 8B instead of holding that no disallowance is warranted under section 14A. b. The learned AO ought to have appreciated the fact

GIL SHARED SERVICES PRIVATE LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3485/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

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

price without giving benefit of +/- 5 percent under the proviso to section 92C of the Act. Issue 2: Infusion of interest Ground of objection 12 — Erroneous levy of interest under Section234B, Section 234C and Section 234D The Ld. AO has erred by levying interest under Section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) despite the fact

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

transfer but subscribe actual earning of profit, then the impugned suggestion of the AO do not have legal sanctity in the eyes of law. 10.9 A very pertinent question has been raised by ld.AR Mr. Patel that what should be the line of demarcation to determine the sale price of a product if not the market price

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

transfer but subscribe actual earning of profit, then the impugned suggestion of the AO do not have legal sanctity in the eyes of law. 10.9 A very pertinent question has been raised by ld.AR Mr. Patel that what should be the line of demarcation to determine the sale price of a product if not the market price

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1085/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 42(2)Section 42(2)(b)

234C of the Act. I.T.A. No. 1085/CHNY/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 7 of 21 [9] We will take up all these grounds of appeal as all these grounds are on the same issue and interconnected. In substance, in our considered view, the questions actually required to be adjudicated by us are as follows: - Whether the CIT(A) ought

TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HOSUR vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1913/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana (Sr. Advocate) for Shri Manasa Ananthan (Advocate) - Ld. AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) –Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 801C

price as originally determined by the Appellant. Ground 2: Error in imputing notional interest The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred in imputing interest on advances granted by the appellant to the Associated Enterprises Ground 3: Error in computing royalty on sales a. The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred in imputing royalty and consequently making an adjustment for computation of tax. b. The Learned AO/TPO/DRP

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak, CA &For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

transfer pricing analysis to determine the ALP & not to determine whether there is a service or not from which the appellant benefits and thereby challenging the commercial wisdom of the appellant in making such payments. 5. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO on the directions issued by the Ld. DRP erred in concluding

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak, CA &For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

transfer pricing analysis to determine the ALP & not to determine whether there is a service or not from which the appellant benefits and thereby challenging the commercial wisdom of the appellant in making such payments. 5. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO on the directions issued by the Ld. DRP erred in concluding

INTIMATE FASHIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in IT (TP) A No

ITA 2725/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleit (Tp) A No.48/Chny/2019 It (Tp) A No.54/Chny/2018 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S.Intimate Fashions (India)- V. The Dcit / Jcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2(2), 517-519, Chennai. Tirupporur Kottamedu High Road, Nandhivaram Village, Guduvancheri-603 202. Kanchipuram District.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

price and hence is at arm's length. 11. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. 12. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act The Appellant craves leave to add to / alter / amend / substitute any of the above grounds of appeal

INTIMATE FASHIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in IT (TP) A No

ITA 802/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleit (Tp) A No.48/Chny/2019 It (Tp) A No.54/Chny/2018 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S.Intimate Fashions (India)- V. The Dcit / Jcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2(2), 517-519, Chennai. Tirupporur Kottamedu High Road, Nandhivaram Village, Guduvancheri-603 202. Kanchipuram District.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

price and hence is at arm's length. 11. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. 12. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act The Appellant craves leave to add to / alter / amend / substitute any of the above grounds of appeal

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(ERSTWHILE EXCELLENCE DATA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 13/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Hyd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S. Cognizant Technology- The Acit, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-17(1), 9Th Floor, (As Successor In Interest Of Erstwhile Excellence Data Signature Towers, Opp: Botanical Garden, Research Pvt. Ltd.), 6Th Floor, New No.165, Old No.110, Kondapur, Hyderabad. Menon Eternity Building, St. Mary’S Road,Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan: Aabce 4933 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.P.Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules) and undertaking a fresh economic analysis during the course of assessment proceedings and thereby making an adjustment to the international transactions. Selection of incomparable companies 4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case

M/S. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2118/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2118/Mds/2011 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Vs The M/S. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 34,Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Rajiv Income Tax, Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 103. Company Circle Ii(1), Chennai Pan : Aaacf4997N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

234C of the Act. (v) The Ld.AO had erred in initiating penalty proceedings U/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Transfer Pricing Issues: (vi) The Ld.DRP has erred in upholding the order of Ld.TPO/A.O, who had compared the international transaction of the assessee with the companies providing software development service when the fact was that the assessee was providing only

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DICT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 581/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Shri. Anjaneyalu, IRS, CIT
Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 234B

234C of the Act which are consequential in nature. 3. Vide its Grounds 2 to 4, assessee assails the Transfer Pricing adjustments made with regard to engineering services rendered by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises abroad and imputing of interest on alleged delay in collection of receivables from Associated Enterprises. Apart from this, assessee has also raised certain corporate

BAHWAN CYBERTEK PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 290/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.290/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.07.2017
Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), upon Functional & Risk (FAR) analysis, rejecting the assessee’s report, held as under computing the ALP accordingly: ‘7.6 Attribution of income between the AE and the Assessee: During the course of the assessement proceedings the assessee was required to furnish the TP pricing policy ……… • The assessee has (not) furnished any Master Service Agreements that would delineate

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

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

ITA 1937/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 194CSection 194HSection 2Section 250Section 253(1)Section 30Section 40

234C are not sustainable in law and merits to be set aside. 15.The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before, or at, the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged