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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai857Delhi850Bangalore704Chennai190Kolkata188Pune167Ahmedabad124Hyderabad91Indore32Jaipur18Karnataka17Visakhapatnam16Chandigarh16Amritsar9Surat9Cochin9Dehradun5Rajkot4Panaji2Cuttack2Guwahati2Ranchi1Raipur1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 144C(5)11Section 143(3)9Section 92C8Disallowance8Section 36(1)(iii)6Section 14A6Section 406Addition to Income6Transfer Pricing5Comparables/TP

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

disallowed the royalty payment to the extent of Rs. 40,51,486/- treating the same as the royalty paid by the assessee in respect of exports sale and other income. We are unable to agree with this strange method followed by the TPO to make a TP

3
TP Method3
Section 36(1)(viii)2

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

disallowed the royalty payment to the extent of Rs. 40,51,486/- treating the same as the royalty paid by the assessee in respect of exports sale and other income. We are unable to agree with this strange method followed by the TPO to make a TP

ACIT CORPORATE, COCHIN vs. M/S.JOY ALUKKAS (INDIA) LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 151/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 253Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

disallowance of Rs.92,28,405/- was therefore made out of interest of Rs.26,80,08,523/- debited to the P&L account, as attributable to amounts invested in capital work-in-progress. The assessee was not able to place any evidence contrary to this. In view of this, we are not in a position to appreciate the argument

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 190/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 253Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

disallowance of Rs.92,28,405/- was therefore made out of interest of Rs.26,80,08,523/- debited to the P&L account, as attributable to amounts invested in capital work-in-progress. The assessee was not able to place any evidence contrary to this. In view of this, we are not in a position to appreciate the argument

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 119/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 92C

Disallowance of advertisement expenses of Rs. 1,05,59,467/-. 8. On receipt of draft assessment order, the appellant-company had filed several objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore (DRP). The DRP issued directions confirming the addition of TP adjustments and further directed to allow the expenditure incurred on improvements to leasehold premises as Revenue expenditure following

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 92C

Disallowance of advertisement expenses of Rs. 1,05,59,467/-. 8. On receipt of draft assessment order, the appellant-company had filed several objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore (DRP). The DRP issued directions confirming the addition of TP adjustments and further directed to allow the expenditure incurred on improvements to leasehold premises as Revenue expenditure following

TORRY HARRIS SEA FOODS LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 447/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

TP)A. No./447C/2016 2. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore did not properly appreciated the fact that your appellant company is mainly exporting the products ranging to 25% glaze, whereas the rate quoted by MPEDA is only 10-20% glaze. 3. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore also did not consider the submissions of the appellant to the effect that with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.NETWORK SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 2/COCH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

method 7 Nest GmbH Advances Rs. 2,82,60,841/- CUP 8 Nihon Nest Corporation Commission Rs.12,09,19,144 CUP 9 Nihon Nest Corporation Post Support Rs, 6,04,59,572 CUP Services 10 Nihon Nest Corporation Reimbursement Rs. 80,56,963 CPM 11 Nest Technologies Inc of Expenses Rs. 8,91,01,229 CPM 5. On noticing

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.NETWORK SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 3/COCH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

method 7 Nest GmbH Advances Rs. 2,82,60,841/- CUP 8 Nihon Nest Corporation Commission Rs.12,09,19,144 CUP 9 Nihon Nest Corporation Post Support Rs, 6,04,59,572 CUP Services 10 Nihon Nest Corporation Reimbursement Rs. 80,56,963 CPM 11 Nest Technologies Inc of Expenses Rs. 8,91,01,229 CPM 5. On noticing