Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

101 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,248 Delhi1,030 Hyderabad268 Chennai267 Bangalore222 Ahmedabad186 Jaipur149 Kolkata125 Chandigarh109 Cochin101 Indore93 Surat67 Pune64 Rajkot55 Nagpur38 Raipur35 Visakhapatnam31 Lucknow29 Jodhpur27 Amritsar23 Guwahati21 Cuttack18 Agra17 Dehradun8 Varanasi6 Allahabad3 Jabalpur2 Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 250120 Section 143(3)24 Section 153A21 Section 143(2)14 Addition to Income13 Section 220(2)12 Section 15412 Section 244A12 Section 80G12

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

34,83,13,172/- with its Associated Enterprises. The case of the Assessee was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

Survey u/s 133A7

Rectification u/s 1547

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)

section 234B and 234C of the Act The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, we note that the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that issue raised by the assessee in ground

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

transferring profit to the sister concern/s, which charge is though, both unproved and incidental, on which nothing therefore turns, even as explained in Patel Chemical Works (supra). We may though add that the assessee’s reply should also meet the other incident observations by the AO in the assessment order, noted by us at para 2 (pg. 3) of this

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

transfer pricing addition of Rs. 9,57,364/- to the income of the Assessee and holding that the international transactions pertaining to provision of corporate IT services do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act. 12.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. ΤΡΟ grossly erred

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.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

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

section 133A of the Act at the business premises of one, Shri Ittoop Konuparamban, Chalakkudy, Thrissur, also the place of the assessee’s residence, on 13.03.2015, on the basis of the material impounded there-from and the subsequent statement of Shri Ittoop and, indeed, the assessee himself. The assessee, who had not filed any return of income for the year

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

section 133A of the Act at the business premises of one, Shri Ittoop Konuparamban, Chalakkudy, Thrissur, also the place of the assessee’s residence, on 13.03.2015, on the basis of the material impounded there-from and the subsequent statement of Shri Ittoop and, indeed, the assessee himself. The assessee, who had not filed any return of income for the year

MRS. HEMA RAMNATH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/COCH/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmihema Ramnath Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) 35/2968, Laxmi Villa Ernakulam 682018 Church Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi - 682025 [Pan:Aavpr8682G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54FSection 54F(1)

section 45 as income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw the unutilised amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. 2.2 The assessee’s invocation of the doctrine of impossibility of performance, inasmuch as the delayed

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 67/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, FCA

Section 132Section 153CSection 268A

section (3) thereof, would have no bearing on the merits of the case. The decision by the first appellate authority for that year, as for the current year, cannot bind this Tribunal, so that the matter cannot be regarded as covered, and would require being adjudicated by it on merits. The same would though be relevant and taken into account

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

price bargained and fetched is only for a non-agricultural land sold for a residential project, i.e., it’s location and the land user profile of the surrounding areas. The law, we are afraid, has not been appreciated by the ld. CIT(A); the issue being essentially a matter of fact, so that the transaction has to be viewed

SHRI.VISWANATHA MANOJ KUMAR,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 151/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

price fixed by the State Government for the purpose of levy of stamp duty, was at Rs.215.21 lakhs, i.e., at Rs.76.03 lacs higher. The provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, reading as under, was thus attracted, applicability of which had not been examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment: Income from other sources

BIOWIN AGRO RESEARCH,MANANTHAWADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna. K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 8

price thereto. However, in the absence of any material in support, the same remains a bald claim. Two, it is only to this extent, then, that the farmers can be said to be benefitted. Further still, purchase being a normal cost 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 02 & 03/COCH/2022 (AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Biowin Agro Research

BIOWIN AGRO RESEARCH,MANANTHAWADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 2/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna. K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 8

price thereto. However, in the absence of any material in support, the same remains a bald claim. Two, it is only to this extent, then, that the farmers can be said to be benefitted. Further still, purchase being a normal cost 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 02 & 03/COCH/2022 (AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Biowin Agro Research

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 285/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 233/COCH/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 283/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 232/COCH/2024[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice