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.

515 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai635Delhi515Hyderabad234Jaipur179Chennai132Ahmedabad118Chandigarh99Bangalore99Kolkata87Pune84Rajkot78Cochin61Surat48Visakhapatnam47Indore47Raipur27Lucknow25Nagpur21Guwahati20Agra19Jodhpur18Cuttack13Amritsar12Dehradun10Varanasi6Allahabad4Patna2Ranchi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)75Section 153C49Addition to Income43Section 143(2)38Section 144C23Deduction23Section 142(1)22Section 92C22Section 14A20

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

Transfer Pricing adjustment by substituting the arm‘s length price for the contract price. 68. The five methods stipulated in sub-section (1) to Section 92C, are set out and articulated step-wise in detail in Rule 10B of the Rules. Be it any of the 2015:DHC:2485-DB ITA 16/2014 & connected matters Page 51 of 142

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

ITA/110/2014HC Delhi11 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 92C

142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

Showing 1–20 of 515 · Page 1 of 26

...
Transfer Pricing20
Section 44D18
Disallowance17

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

ITA/710/2015HC Delhi11 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 92C

142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1977/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma
Section 132Section 142Section 144C(4)Section 153ASection 80Section 801BSection 80I

price of goods and as such assessing officer is not justified in enhancing value without making reference to any comparable cases. IX. Further, assessing officer has not brought anything on record to establish market value of goods for purpose of provision of section 80IA(8) and as such adjustment made to value of goods transferred from non-eligible unit

ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

ITA 913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) by the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the transaction entered by the assessee with Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (“Adobe India”) has always been accepted at Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) by the preceding TPO(s). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AO issued show cause notice

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR MAHASANG HARYANA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH/FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

section 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for AY 2018-19 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee revised the return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 29.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.Nil

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3195/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2003-04
For Appellant: \nShri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: \nMs. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act,\nShri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared\nand filed details.\n4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its\nassociated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1976/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma
Section 144C(4)Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

price of goods and as such assessing officer is not justified in enhancing value without making reference to any comparable cases. IX. Further, assessing officer has not brought anything on record to establish market value of goods for purpose of provision of section 80IA(8) and as such adjustment made to value of goods transferred from non-eligible unit

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5736/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Atul Jain &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

142 to 144 and page 170 of the Paper Book): 2 S. No. Comparable NCP (%) Unadjusted Single year 1. Geometric Software Solutions Co. Ltd. 10.71 2. Helios & Matheson Information 36.63 Technology Ltd. 3. Infosys Technologies Limited 40.3 4. KALS Information Systems Ltd. 30.55 5. Lanco Global Systems Ltd. (LGS Global 15.75 Limited) 6. R.S. Software (India

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

142(1) of the Act was issued on 27.9.2016. The AO initiated scrutiny proceedings under section 143(2) of the Act and referred the case to the Transfer Pricing

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

ITA 5356/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153

pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making addition

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1448/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

GATES INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2379/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

Section 37 of the Act. The TPO cannot benchmark a transaction at ‘Nil’ under CUP method on the premise of business of benefit derived by the assessee from a given transaction as observed in the case of CIT vs. Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 730 (Del) under the transfer pricing provision the TPO has computed

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5560/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

142 and 143 of paper book that it cannot be identified from transfer pricing study. Thus, based on above he requested to not consider this as a covered matter and thus he supported the addition made by lower authorities. 32. The ld. AR of the assessee on rebuttal to the ld. DR’s contentions referred to page

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances no orders as to

ITA/346/2015HC Delhi23 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 92C

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) were issued. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer invoked Section 92CA(1) of the Act and referred the case of the Appellant to the Transfer Pricing

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

Price in respect of international transaction entered by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises as shown by the assessee in its tax audit report as well as in audited accounts. The said case was referred to the TPO for determination the- ALP of the international Transactions after approval from the appropriate authority. 4. Thereafter, a notice under section 142