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.

12 results for “transfer pricing”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,449Mumbai1,211Bangalore1,163Pune261Kolkata243Chennai214Hyderabad188Ahmedabad155Karnataka63Indore35Visakhapatnam32Jaipur27Chandigarh21Cochin12Surat11Amritsar9Guwahati6Cuttack5Dehradun5Telangana5Rajkot4SC3Nagpur2Panaji2Ranchi1Raipur1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 144C(5)13Section 92C11Section 143(3)10Transfer Pricing8Addition to Income8Disallowance8Section 36(1)(iii)6Section 14A6Section 40

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)

Transfer Pricing regulations in India is arithmetic average or median of the prices of the uncontrolled comparables. In view of the same, due to rejection of filters, if some or all uncontrolled comparables are rejected, the consequent Arm's Length Price would also stand rejected. 5.4 Therefore, in view of section 92C(3)(c), it is relevant to hold that

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

6
Comparables/TP6
Section 144C3
TP Method3

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) document furnished for the A. Y. 2012-13, the taxpayer company has sold products to Associated Enterprises (AEsJ of Rs.79,50,26,341/-. While going through the Transfer Pricing study submitted by you for A. Y 2012-13, it is seen that you have adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method

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)

method. As per the said provision. TPO at first has to find out the price charged or paid for property transferred IT(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)

method. As per the said provision. TPO at first has to find out the price charged or paid for property transferred IT(TP

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

price (ALP). On noticing the above, the AO referred the matter to 3 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. the TPO for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO rejecting the TP study submitted by the appellant and proceeded with the benchmarking the international transaction by rejecting

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

price (ALP). On noticing the above, the AO referred the matter to 3 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. the TPO for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO rejecting the TP study submitted by the appellant and proceeded with the benchmarking the international transaction by rejecting

UST GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 1071/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rajakannam, Advocate
Section 143Section 92C

TP study by adopting by adopting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method and sought to justify the international transactions are at arm's length price (ALP). On noticing the above international transaction, the AO referred the matter, under the provisions of section 92CA(1) of the Act, to the Transfer

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arms length price (ALP). The TPO vide order dated 27/01/2014 passed u/s. 92CA(3) made a recommendation towards TP adjustment of Rs.3,69,19,518/- to the value of international transactions. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order on 25/03/2014 proposing other additions also under normal provisions. The assessee filed objections before

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arms length price (ALP). The TPO vide order dated 27/01/2014 passed u/s. 92CA(3) made a recommendation towards TP adjustment of Rs.3,69,19,518/- to the value of international transactions. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order on 25/03/2014 proposing other additions also under normal provisions. The assessee filed objections before

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

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)

TP).A. No. 66/Coch/2018 2. The learned panel erred in confirming the decision of the Assessing Officer in making an upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.4,32,18,348/- to the total income of the assessee by computing the Arms Length Price under the Transaction Net margin Method