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.

29 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 144C(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,872Mumbai1,747Bangalore835Hyderabad274Pune262Kolkata215Chennai185Ahmedabad131Visakhapatnam33Jaipur30Chandigarh30Cochin29Karnataka21Indore16Rajkot15Dehradun15Surat12Cuttack8Kerala5Telangana4Panaji4Amritsar3Guwahati3SC3Calcutta2Raipur2Jabalpur1Lucknow1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)38Section 92C26Transfer Pricing22Section 144C21Addition to Income19Section 144C(5)18Disallowance15Comparables/TP14Section 10B

APPLEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

ITA 955/COCH/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: Shri Reuben JosephFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal which can be grouped as under: Ground No.1: Incorrect rejection of transfer pricing

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM vs. M/S.OLAM AGRO INDIA P. LTD, KOLLAM

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

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 80G12
Section 10A9
Deduction8
ITA 560/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: The order of the CIT(A), partly allowing the appeal file by the assessee stating that there has been procedural violation in terms of provisions of section 144C by the Assessing Officer and therefore Transfer Pricing

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 601/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a subsidiary of International Business Services Group (P) Limited ("IBSG") having units in Software Technology Park of India ("STPI) and Special Assessment Year 2013-2014 Economic Zone ("SEZ"). The Assessee, a company engaged in the business of development and sale of computer software

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM vs. M/S.OLAM AGRO INDIA P. LTD, KOLLAM

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

ITA 518/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt.Surabhi Agarwal &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

2. The ground raised reads as follow:- “The learned CIT(A), has erred in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee stating that there has been procedural violation in terms of provisions of Section 144C by the AO and therefore Transfer Pricing

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 247/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Sri.Santam Bose
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

144C of the I.T.Act disallowing the deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act and interest expenses on funds advanced. In response to the draft assessment order, the assessee filed submissions before the Assessing Officer intimating its inability to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in the absence of transfer pricing adjustment in the draft assessment order. The final assessment

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 598/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri Thomson Thomas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 80GSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Order made an adjustment of Rs.2,03,38,752/- towards notional guarantee commission in respect of corporate guarantee given by the assessee for its Subsidiary.After receiving the order of the TPO, the Assessing Officer made a draft assessment order u/s 144(1) proposing to make the following adjustments:- i. Addition as proposed by TPO — towards notional Guarantee Commission

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

144C(13) after proposing the following additions:- a) Addition by way of adjustments of Rs. 7,86,61,786/- b) Addition made on account of leasehold premises of Rs. 12,12,97,648/-. 4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received on leasehold

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

144C(13) after proposing the following additions:- a) Addition by way of adjustments of Rs. 7,86,61,786/- b) Addition made on account of leasehold premises of Rs. 12,12,97,648/-. 4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received on leasehold

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)

144C(5) of the I.T.Act, dated 28.12.2015. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, they are being heard together and disposed off by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. 2. Grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.475/Coch/2016 are reproduced below:- “The grounds stated hereunder are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant submits

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)

144C(5) of the I.T.Act, dated 28.12.2015. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, they are being heard together and disposed off by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. 2. Grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.475/Coch/2016 are reproduced below:- “The grounds stated hereunder are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant submits

THE ACIT CORPORATE, COCHIN vs. M/S.KERA FIBERTEX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 361/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.” (emphasis, ours) The Controversy 4.1 The law in the matter is, thus, amply clear, and the procedure well laid out, qua which there could therefore possibly be no cleavage of opinion. The issue, as we discern

M/S.KERA FIBERTEX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals by the assessee is allowed, and that by the Revenue, dismissed

ITA 311/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Sathisan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 153Section 153B

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.” (emphasis, ours) The Controversy 4.1 The law in the matter is, thus, amply clear, and the procedure well laid out, qua which there could therefore possibly be no cleavage of opinion. The issue, as we discern

US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 562/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 144C(3)Section 92C(3)

144C(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 24.02.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised fresh grounds of appeal detailed as under: “Ground No. 1-Assessment and Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law 1.1 The final order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) ('Assessing

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 679/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 92C

144C(13) & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 20th June, 2024, by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (AO') pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), and the additions/disallowances made by the Id. AO/TPO, are grossly injudicious, unwarranted, against the facts of the case and bad in law. 2. The additions/disallowances made

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

2,32,10,5456 technology services 14 Investment in equity 50,02,98,250 15 Reimbursement of expenses 1,07,78,001 16 Recovery of expenses 3,69,14,146 3. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the purpose of benchmarking

M/S.MICROOBJECTS P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 470/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm M/S. Microobjects Private Limited, Vs The Asst. Commr Of Income Tax 41/1098B, Pullepady Cross Road, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi. Kochi-682018. ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(4)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

section 144C of the I.T. Act. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a private limited company. It is a captive service provider (software developer) for its associate enterprise (AE) which is based in USA. For the assessment year 2011-12, the return of income

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 185/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru dated 18/12/2014 and pertain to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 Non-allowance of prior period income in the computation of margins of the Company Relief • The Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") erred

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 191/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru dated 18/12/2014 and pertain to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 Non-allowance of prior period income in the computation of margins of the Company Relief • The Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") erred

M/S. DELPHI CONNECTION SYSTEM INDIA P. LTD(FORMERLY FCI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 66/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 144C(5)

section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act dated 28/12/2017 and pertain to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru to the extent appealed against is against law, equity and justice. I.T(TP).A. No. 66/Coch/2018 2. The learned panel erred

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 489/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santhom Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 156Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Transfer Pricing adjustment Rs. 62,81,151 2.2 On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objection u/s 144C(2)(b) of the I.T.Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its order dated ITA No.489/Coch/2016 & SA 60/Coch/2017. 3 M/s.Allianz Cornhill International Services Pvt.Ltd. 12.08.2016, disposed off the objections of the assessee. The direction