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.

988 results for “transfer pricing”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi988Mumbai643Karnataka197Bangalore169Chennai128Kolkata111Ahmedabad88Jaipur68Indore39Pune32Cochin28Telangana28Chandigarh27Visakhapatnam19Raipur17Calcutta16Hyderabad15SC12Lucknow12Rajkot7Cuttack7Surat4Varanasi4Rajasthan3Amritsar2Nagpur2Jabalpur2Agra1Guwahati1Dehradun1Kerala1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)82Double Taxation/DTAA48Addition to Income37Section 153A27Disallowance21Permanent Establishment20Section 6818Section 144C17Section 9(1)(vi)16

NETAPP B.V.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

ITA 4781/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishinet App B.V. Ddit, Circle-2(1), Boeing Avenue-300, 111Pz, International Tax, New Delhi Vs. Schiphol, Rijk, The Netherlands Pan: Aadcn2178C (Appellant) (Respondent) Net App B.V. Dcit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Circle- 2(2), Vs. 6Th Floor, Hindustan Times Bldg, International Taxation, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-300, Pan: Aadcn2178C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT Int Taxation
Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44D

permanent establishment in India. Page 20 of 63 28. He further assailed the argument of the appellant that transactions of appellant with Indian entity are not at arm‘s length. For this he referred to the transfer pricing

Showing 1–20 of 988 · Page 1 of 50

...
Section 9(1)(vii)15
Section 913
Section 4013

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA)PVT.LTD.

ITA/155/2022HC Delhi07 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 92BSection 92F

transfer pricing provisions enshrined in Chapter X of the Act do not seek to benchmark transactions between two Indian enterprises.” 6. As is manifest from the above, the Tribunal was constrained to interfere with the view expressed by the TPO, bearing in mind a failure on the part of the Department to have alluded or referred to any arrangement which

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

ITA/156/2022HC Delhi07 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 92BSection 92F

transfer pricing provisions enshrined in Chapter X of the Act do not seek to benchmark transactions between two Indian enterprises.” 6. As is manifest from the above, the Tribunal was constrained to interfere with the view expressed by the TPO, bearing in mind a failure on the part of the Department to have alluded or referred to any arrangement which

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. E FUNDS IT SOLUTION

The appeals are disposed of

ITA - 735 / 2011HC Delhi05 Feb 2014

permanent establishment of the parent company. The last portion of the aforesaid quotation refers to position where two companies or enterprises work as partners and in this situation permanent establishment of the partners may be a 2014:DHC:702-DB ITA No. 735/2011+connected appeals Page 60 of 102 PE, if general preconditions are fulfilled. The last words ‗if general

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S E FUNDS IT SOLUTION

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/735/2011HC Delhi05 Feb 2014

permanent establishment of the parent company. The last portion of the aforesaid quotation refers to position where two companies or enterprises work as partners and in this situation permanent establishment of the partners may be a 2014:DHC:702-DB ITA No. 735/2011+connected appeals Page 60 of 102 PE, if general preconditions are fulfilled. The last words ‗if general

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.

ITA/1029/2018HC Delhi15 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Transfer Pricing Regulations, it cannot be said that the SIEL which is subsidiary company is a PE and rejected the findings of the AO on that aspect. 29. So also the Ld. DRP by paragraph no 5.4.4.4 rejected the contention of the AO that SIEL may be treated as a dependent agent for the purpose of Article

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3 vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.

ITA/289/2023HC Delhi15 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Transfer Pricing Regulations, it cannot be said that the SIEL which is subsidiary company is a PE and rejected the findings of the AO on that aspect. 29. So also the Ld. DRP by paragraph no 5.4.4.4 rejected the contention of the AO that SIEL may be treated as a dependent agent for the purpose of Article

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.

ITA/625/2019HC Delhi15 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Transfer Pricing Regulations, it cannot be said that the SIEL which is subsidiary company is a PE and rejected the findings of the AO on that aspect. 29. So also the Ld. DRP by paragraph no 5.4.4.4 rejected the contention of the AO that SIEL may be treated as a dependent agent for the purpose of Article

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.

ITA/604/2019HC Delhi15 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Transfer Pricing Regulations, it cannot be said that the SIEL which is subsidiary company is a PE and rejected the findings of the AO on that aspect. 29. So also the Ld. DRP by paragraph no 5.4.4.4 rejected the contention of the AO that SIEL may be treated as a dependent agent for the purpose of Article

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD

ITA/1060/2018HC Delhi15 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Transfer Pricing Regulations, it cannot be said that the SIEL which is subsidiary company is a PE and rejected the findings of the AO on that aspect. 29. So also the Ld. DRP by paragraph no 5.4.4.4 rejected the contention of the AO that SIEL may be treated as a dependent agent for the purpose of Article

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

ITA/885/2019HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

ITA/166/2020HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

ITA/883/2019HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

ITA/887/2019HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

ITA/882/2019HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERELY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

ITA/884/2019HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

ITA/170/2020HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA NETWORK OY

ITA/786/2019HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

ITA/171/2020HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. NOKIA CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOKIA NETWORK OY)

ITA/60/2023HC Delhi21 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

permanent establishment, no formal legal right to use need be discerned or proven. It was thus held that as long as it is a space in an establishment or premises placed at the constant "disposal" of the enterprise, it would satisfy the test of a fixed place permanent establishment as contemplated under articles