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.

1,762 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 2(24)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,762Mumbai1,492Bangalore661Karnataka333Ahmedabad289Kolkata270Chennai232Jaipur230Hyderabad194Chandigarh166Indore164Pune138Cochin87Rajkot66Calcutta56Surat49Nagpur37Cuttack37Telangana35SC34Lucknow31Raipur23Visakhapatnam19Guwahati19Jodhpur14Agra14Amritsar14Ranchi9Varanasi9Kerala5Dehradun5Rajasthan4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Allahabad3Orissa2Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income51Section 143(3)44Section 153A36Double Taxation/DTAA23Section 92C20Disallowance20Deduction17Transfer Pricing17Section 6814

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5546/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

Showing 1–20 of 1,762 · Page 1 of 89

...
Comparables/TP14
Section 144C13
Search & Seizure13

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5574/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5513/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5512/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

ITA/224/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 10A(2)(c)

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said communication

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5556/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 250Section 92C

2 of the TP Order] From the perusal of the aforesaid para of the transfer v. pricing order under section 92CA of the Act, it is apparent that the Assessee was primarily acting as "exclusive agent of its AE” and the Assessee was not assuming any significant risk for its function apart from risk of foreign exchange fluctuation. Attention

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

24 of 142 33. The DRP upheld the suggested transfer pricing adjustment. 34. The Tribunal in the impugned order has observed that following the majority judgment in L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd. (supra), the legal grounds should be decided against the assessee. On the question of nature and scope of AMP expenditure, as elucidated by the majority judgment

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA/38/2002HC Delhi24 Sept 2015
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 45Section 50

vi) The basis of valuation of the Assessee as a going concern at Rs.20.729 crores was unreliable since despite the Assessee getting substantial lease 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 8 of 32 rentals in AY 1995-96 and 1996-97 it had been incurring losses. By resorting to the said device

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA - 132 / 2002HC Delhi24 Sept 2015
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 45Section 50

vi) The basis of valuation of the Assessee as a going concern at Rs.20.729 crores was unreliable since despite the Assessee getting substantial lease 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 8 of 32 rentals in AY 1995-96 and 1996-97 it had been incurring losses. By resorting to the said device

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA/132/2002HC Delhi24 Sept 2015
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 45Section 50

vi) The basis of valuation of the Assessee as a going concern at Rs.20.729 crores was unreliable since despite the Assessee getting substantial lease 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 8 of 32 rentals in AY 1995-96 and 1996-97 it had been incurring losses. By resorting to the said device

LI & FUNG INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order dated 25/11/11 of the ITAT Tribunal, Delhi Branch

ITA/306/2012HC Delhi16 Dec 2013

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 260ASection 92C

vi) The assessee was afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard (including personal hearing) as mentioned on page 1 of this order.” 8. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) by order dated 30.09.2010 passed under Section 144C (5) of the Act reduced the said mark up of 5% of FOB value of exports to 3%. The Assessing Officer accordingly in the final

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

24)(vi) and for that purpose we have to read the sub-section strictly. We cannot widen the scope of sub-section by saying that the definition as a whole is inclusive and not exhaustive. In the present case, the words "chargeable under section 45" are very important. They are not being read by the Department. These words cannot

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA - 475 / 2012HC Delhi23 May 2014
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

24. Section 92C (4) of the Act provides that where an arm’s length price is determined by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm’s length price so determined. However, no deduction under section 10A [or section 10AA] or section

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7362/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

vi. He further submitted that the rule 10 THC provides that the use of tariff notified by the electricity commission should be considered as an arm’s-length price of the transfer of power. He referred to the OECD guidelines in para number 3.27 and stated that the application of internal cup over external cup should be preferred. He referred

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3865/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

Pricing Officer {hereinafter referred to as the “TPO”} had vide order dated 14th September 2011 accepted the ALP of all International Transactions undertaken by the appellant. 3.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition on account of alleged “Transaction” / “International Transaction” of issue of Corporate Guarantee without appreciating that there was no corporate

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

Pricing Officer {hereinafter referred to as the “TPO”} had vide order dated 14th September 2011 accepted the ALP of all International Transactions undertaken by the appellant. 3.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition on account of alleged “Transaction” / “International Transaction” of issue of Corporate Guarantee without appreciating that there was no corporate

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 143Section 144CSection 92C

2), the most appropriate method, referred to in Section 92C(1), "shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner prescribed". Therefore, as long as the method covered by rule 10AB, which is duly covered by Section 92C(1) satisfies the test of being the 'most appropriate method', it can be applied to a fact situation

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

2), the most appropriate method, referred to in Section 92C(1), "shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner prescribed". Therefore, as long as the method covered by rule 10AB, which is duly covered by Section 92C(1) satisfies the test of being the 'most appropriate method', it can be applied to a fact situation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 391

vi) or 47(vib) of the Act), the period of holding of the asset by the “previous owner” is also to be taken into account, as mandated by clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 2(42A) of the Act. Such complete period will be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the indexed cost of acquisition [Refer Arun

LIUGONG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1482/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Pardasani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

section 92C, the arm 's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely:— (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number