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.

436 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi436Mumbai320Jaipur158Hyderabad113Bangalore112Chennai63Ahmedabad52Kolkata43Indore38Rajkot37Chandigarh32Cochin25Cuttack19Guwahati16Agra14Surat14Raipur13Visakhapatnam9Pune9Nagpur7Patna6Lucknow6Amritsar5Karnataka4Varanasi2Allahabad1Telangana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income60Section 153C35Bogus Purchases33Disallowance32Unexplained Investment28Section 69B27Section 153A26Section 133A22Section 14820Survey u/s 133A

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

Showing 1–20 of 436 · Page 1 of 22

...
19
Section 194H18
Section 143(3)17

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal

M/S. ASIAN HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6142/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiasian Honda Motor Co. Ltd, Dcit, C/O. Pds Legal Atmaram Int. Taxation Vs. Mansion, Office No. 7, First Floor, Kg Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaica2531P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri NC Swain, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 271BSection 92(3)Section 92C

price. Ground 8: That on facts and in law, the AO/ TPO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271BA, 271 AA and 27 1G of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has not complied with the provision of aforesaid sections. It is imperative to mention that the Appellant had duly submitted

TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7580/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144

transfer pricing study report where the type of services rendered and received by the assesee is shown along with basis of the allocation, details of services availed, manner in which services rendered and details of benefit derived is mentioned. He further referred to page No. 250 of the paper book which are bills for the services availed by the assesee

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6502/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 928Section 92C(1)

transfer pricing issues, the Assessing Officer recorded that a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act, was conducted on the premises of the assessee. During the course of survey, it was found that 13 | P a g e ITA No.-6502/Del/2017 [Assessment Year : 2013-14] certain payments without deducting the tax at source were made, therefore, the Assessing Officer

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GAUTAM BUIDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Lg L.G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The A.C.I.T Vs. No.51, Udyog Vihar, Circle -3 Plot Surajpur Kasna Road Noida Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No. Aaacl 1745Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 144C

133A of the Act was conducted on 24.06.2010 and during the course of survey, statements of expatriate employees show that LG Korea is exercising control and consideration over LG India. Drawing support from the statements, the ld. DR strongly contended that during the year under consideration, the assessee has incurred AMP expenses and its Associated Enterprises [AEs] should have reimbursed

M/S. ASIAN HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6143/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Asian Honda Motor Co. Dcit, Ltd., Intl Taxation, Vs. C/O. Pds Legal New Delhi Atmaram Mansion, Office No.7, First Floor, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaica2531P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92(3)Section 92C

133A on Honda Seil Cars India Ltd on 24.06.2010 certain documents were found wherefrom the revenue has formed a belief that appellant has a permanent establishment in India. It has also entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises. The return of income was filed by the assessee/ appellant on 20.8.2010 showing income of Rs. 20698486/-. Based on the above

TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are allowed subject to the above directions

ITA 8135/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumartupperware India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Spl. Range 9, 204 – 206, Tolstoy House, New Delhi. 15, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaact3770D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 26.10.2018 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Ld. Drp For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for shot ‘the Act’) on account of non-deduction tax for payment towards software charges, intranet & IT cost reimbursements aggregating to Rs.143,20,849/- 4. Upon assessee’s objection, ld. DRP upheld the TPO’s order. 5. Against the assessment order passed in this case, assessee has filed this appeal

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153ASection 292CSection 37Section 69Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Study filed by the Assessee has been summarily rejected by the TPO without issuing any show cause notice. 3.3 That the TPO has erred on facts and in law in rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) as the most appropriate method and in adopting Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (“CIJP”) as the most appropriate method. 3.4 That

M/S. ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1431/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, (P.) Ltd., Ward-1(3), New Delhi 5Th Floor, Unitech Commercial Tower-Ii, Sector- 45, Block-B, Greenwoods City, Gurgaon Pan : Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv; Ms. Shaily Gupta, Ca; & Mr. Ramit Katyal, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

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

transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenditure and its benchmarking. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: “8.1.2. We don’t deny that there would be incidental benefit to foreign AE, being, Adidas-Saloman AG, which is ultimate parent of assessee. However, expenditure towards advertisement and marketing incurred by assessee in India is mainly

KUNDAN RICE MILLS LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, KARNAL

In the result, all the appeals of the department as well as the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gajanand Meena, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 145Section 153A

133A of the Income Tax Act of M/s Dee Kay Trade Centre, that too with reference to Kundan Edible Products (P) Ltd. and M/s Swastik Vegetable Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. and not with reference to the appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

transfer agreement dated 22.01.2011, was entered between Honda Motors co. Ltd., Hero Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Bhadur Chand Investment Private Ltd. by which the existing JV agreement dated 26.12.1983, as amended from time to time, and 1999 MOU between the JV partners stood terminated. Further, the existing technical know-how agreement entered between Honda and the HHML/JV Company was also

SAHIL STUDY CIRCLE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1434/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

transfer of amounts cannot be accepted. (iii) The A.O. has further highlighted that from the nature of receipt it was possible to identify the students and purpose for receiving this amount. During the entire survey proceedings, no. doubts or explanations had ever been presented by the assessee or Shri S.K. Suri, the Managing Director. (iv) The A.O. has also highlighted

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4477/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\N\Nita No. 4477/Del/2024\N[Assessment Year: 2020-21]\N\N| Genpact Services Llc,\Nplot 22A & B, Sector 18,\Nudyog Vihar,\Ngurgaon, Haryana-122002\Npan-Aaccg3353P\Nappellant\N|\Nassistant Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-International Tax-1(3)(1),\Nvs Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\N| Appellant By\Nshri Vishal Kalra, Adv.,\Nms. Reema Malik, Adv.& Ms.\Nsnigdha Gautam, Adv.\Nrespondent By\Nshri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N30.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N31.07.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The\Nassessing Officer Dated 29.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act') In Pursuance To The\Ndirections Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 25.06.2024 Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2020-21.\N2. The Relevant Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Indian Branch Office Of\Ngenpact Llc, A Usa Company. The Assessee Is A Service Provider\Nrendering Off-Shore Support Services Akin To Bpo Services, Including\Ncollections/Analytics Call Centre Services & Other Back-Office Support\Nservices To Its Aes. The Assessee Is Responsible For Rendering The\Ndesignated Bpo / Collections Services From Its Facility / Infrastructure In\Nindia. As For Assessment Year 2020-21, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of\Nincome (Roi') Declaring An Income Of Inr 20,57,10,540/- On 07.01.2021.\Nduring The Course Of Scrutiny, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S\N92Ca Of The Act To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo') To Determine The\Narm'S Length Price (‘Alp') In Respect Of International Transaction Entered\Ninto By The Assessee.\N2.

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing)-1(3)(1), Mumbai, had\nduring the course of the TP proceedings accepted the reimbursement\nof expenses to be at arm's length, therefore, as per the provisions of\nSec. 92CA(4) of the Act, the A.O was obligated to pass the order and\ncompute the total income of the assessee in conformity with the\narm's length

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1883/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavanokia India Pvt. Ltd., Add. Cit, Tec, Level 18, Dlf Special Range-6, Cyber City, Vs. New Delhi Phase-Iii, Building No.5, Tower A, Gurgaon-122 002 Pan:Aaacn 2170R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price in respect of the international transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. The draft assessment order was passed wherein the assessee’s income was Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT proposed to be assessed at Rs.97,87,82,85,371/- as against the returned income

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

transfer pricing, data analytics, management or any other technical matter under this Act or an agreement entered into under section 90 or 90A, which may be required in a particular case or a class of cases, under this section and the term "technical unit", wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers so assigned

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGAN AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 5382/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Circle 4(1) No. 14, Dda Transport Centre, New Delhi. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7818F & C.O. No.220/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09) M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.14, Dda Transport Centre, Vs Circle-4(1), Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aabcj7818F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(2)

price is Rs.71,47,249/-. 31. The inventory of the stock found during the survey operation at Transport Centre, New Delhi is as under:(page no. 62 of the paper book) S.No. ITEM QTY RATE AMOUNT 1 H4 12V 100/90 W 200000 34 6800000.00 2 H4 12V 100/90 CP 289159 35 10120598.00 3 H4 24V 100/90

ZTE CORPORATION vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground is

ITA 5870/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Sharma CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 148

section 139 of the I.T. Act on the ground that it had no PE in India under the provisions of Article 5 of the Indo-China DTAA. On 6.10.2009 a survey u/s 133A was undertaken at the office premises of ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. at 6th Floor, Tower B, Building No. 10, Phase II, Gurgaon and New Mumbai, Thane

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ZTE CORPORATION,

In the result, this ground is

ITA 5974/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Sharma CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 148

section 139 of the I.T. Act on the ground that it had no PE in India under the provisions of Article 5 of the Indo-China DTAA. On 6.10.2009 a survey u/s 133A was undertaken at the office premises of ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. at 6th Floor, Tower B, Building No. 10, Phase II, Gurgaon and New Mumbai, Thane