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.

388 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 135clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi388Mumbai327Karnataka260Bangalore149Hyderabad134Ahmedabad92Jaipur76Chennai69Kolkata66Cochin59Indore58Calcutta52Chandigarh32Raipur30Pune24Lucknow22Visakhapatnam16Surat14SC12Amritsar11Nagpur9Telangana6Varanasi5Guwahati5Cuttack5Agra4Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Jabalpur2Panaji2Ranchi1Rajkot1Jodhpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Addition to Income48Section 92C37Disallowance35Transfer Pricing33Section 115J25Section 80I24Deduction24Section 144C22

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

ITA 1827/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143

Showing 1–20 of 388 · Page 1 of 20

...
Section 4021
Comparables/TP20
Section 14718
Section 144C
Section 92C

135 of the paper book is a copy of Invoice dated 21.3.2006 pursuant to contract dated 2.3.2006 in which price of Rs. 193 per MT has been charged. The assessee also supplied similar products to its non-AE in Singapore, a copy of which is available on page 287 of the paper book. Similarly, the details regarding export of Sesame

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

ITA 1847/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92C

135 of the paper book is a copy of Invoice dated 21.3.2006 pursuant to contract dated 2.3.2006 in which price of Rs. 193 per MT has been charged. The assessee also supplied similar products to its non-AE in Singapore, a copy of which is available on page 287 of the paper book. Similarly, the details regarding export of Sesame

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

M/S. SIS LIVE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

ITA 1313/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishisis Live Acit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Central Circle-17, Room No. Vs. Golf View Corporate Tower B, 356, E-2, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 142(1)

135 crore (Rs. 246 crore minus Rs. 111 crore) to the assessee and Zoom Communications Ltd. The report also suggested that the assessee secured the contract for Rs. 246 crore; assigned it to Zoom Communications for Rs. 177 crore; provided no service and made a neat profit of the difference between the contracted price and the assigned price

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Armendra Kumar, CIT/ DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92B

section 40(a)(i) are directed to be deleted. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal stand allowed. In view of this decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee, the advance ruling relied on by the ld. DR does not help the revenue, as the said ruling is binding on that applicant and not upon the Tribunal u/s. 245S

M/S STERIA NDIA LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

transfer price legislation. 3.3.2(2) For determining Top-up invoice: “Revenue" is defined as inclusive of (a) Revenue as per clause 3.3.1 (b) Foreign exchange currency gain/loss if any (c) Other income earned out of regular business operations and (d) Top-up value to arrive at agreed return. Non-operational and other income, if any will be excluded for determining

STERIA (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 5745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

transfer price legislation. 3.3.2(2) For determining Top-up invoice: “Revenue" is defined as inclusive of (a) Revenue as per clause 3.3.1 (b) Foreign exchange currency gain/loss if any (c) Other income earned out of regular business operations and (d) Top-up value to arrive at agreed return. Non-operational and other income, if any will be excluded for determining

STERIA INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAQL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 3992/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

transfer price legislation. 3.3.2(2) For determining Top-up invoice: “Revenue" is defined as inclusive of (a) Revenue as per clause 3.3.1 (b) Foreign exchange currency gain/loss if any (c) Other income earned out of regular business operations and (d) Top-up value to arrive at agreed return. Non-operational and other income, if any will be excluded for determining

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BIO RAD LABORATORIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2384/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Raj, Sr. DR

135 is hereby deleted.” 10. We have perused the transfer pricing methodology adopted by the assessee where the gross profit margin was worked out at 56.41% and out of that 27.37% is considered as profits for various costs assumed by the manufacturer, thereby determining the residual profit attributable to sales and marketing activity of 29.05%. This Page

NALWA STEEL POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7176/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92D

transferred to its other business for the for the purpose of computation of profits and gains of the eligible business in terms of section 80-1 A(8) of the I.T. Act. 63. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deepak Fertilizers in ITA No.2116/2013 order dated 30.01.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 while

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on 135,52,80,000/- account of AMP expenses 2. Disallowance of deduction claimed 17,96,61,158/- under section

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

transfer price” of Rs. 1241.32 crores, which was a mutually negotiated and agreed consideration. Clause 3.2 of the said Agreement provided that the parties would request Kotak, a SEBI registered Category I merchant banker, to prepare a valuation report relating to the fair market value of VIL pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Framework Agreement dated 5.7.2007, to confirm

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3257/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

Section 92 of the Act it would be clear that the income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price which shall be determined by any of the 5 methods prescribed in Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of the Act which are following: “(a) Comparable and controlled price method; (b) Resale

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3492/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

Section 92 of the Act it would be clear that the income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price which shall be determined by any of the 5 methods prescribed in Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of the Act which are following: “(a) Comparable and controlled price method; (b) Resale

OMNIGLOBE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE -7, NEW DELHI

In the result, these grounds of appeal are rejected

ITA 6980/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 92C

section 234C of the Act.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 26.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.2,61,11,546/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee is in the business of BPO/Data processing to its associate enterises. It is a company

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6470/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., 1A-D, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Vandana Building, Vs. C.R. Building, Ip Estate, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Acit (Osd), Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Cit-V, Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ito, Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Ward-13(3), Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi C.R. Building, Pan:Aaaca0443N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 92

135 of the paper book is a copy of Invoice dated 21.3.2006 pursuant to contract dated 2.3.2006 in which price of Rs. 193 per MT has been charged. The assessee also supplied similar products to its non-AE in Singapore, a copy of which is available on page 287 of the paper book. Similarly, the details regarding export of Sesame

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NOBLE RESOURCE AND TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3155/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., 1A-D, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Vandana Building, Vs. C.R. Building, Ip Estate, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Acit (Osd), Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Cit-V, Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ito, Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Ward-13(3), Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi C.R. Building, Pan:Aaaca0443N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 92

135 of the paper book is a copy of Invoice dated 21.3.2006 pursuant to contract dated 2.3.2006 in which price of Rs. 193 per MT has been charged. The assessee also supplied similar products to its non-AE in Singapore, a copy of which is available on page 287 of the paper book. Similarly, the details regarding export of Sesame