BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

6 results for “transfer pricing”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai521Delhi419Hyderabad125Bangalore123Chennai104Kolkata73Ahmedabad58Pune31Visakhapatnam22Jaipur19Indore12Amritsar9Surat8Cochin6Cuttack4Chandigarh4Rajkot4Dehradun2Nagpur2Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 92C9Section 143(3)7Section 14A6Addition to Income5Section 36(1)(iii)4Transfer Pricing4Comparables/TP4Disallowance4Section 36(1)(viii)

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

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

2
Section 40a2
Section 402
Depreciation2

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

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

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\nfor statistical purpose and the stay application is dismissed as\ninfructuous

ITA 1071/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22
For Respondent: \nShri Rajakannam, Advocate
Section 143Section 92C

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

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