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.

381 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi381Mumbai273Bangalore193Ahmedabad41Kolkata31Pune21Raipur17Hyderabad14Chandigarh12Chennai10Cochin10Surat6Indore3Jaipur3Jodhpur2Cuttack2Guwahati2Karnataka2Dehradun1Ranchi1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)84Transfer Pricing57Addition to Income55Section 144C41Section 14A37Comparables/TP37Section 92C35Disallowance30Penalty22

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

transfer pricing adjustment; 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of interest under section 234D

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 1170/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibg Exploration & Production Jcit, India Ltd, International Taxation, Bg House, Dehradun Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Bg Exploration & Production International Taxation, India Ltd, Bg House, Lake Dehradun Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Vs. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Showing 1–20 of 381 · Page 1 of 20

...
Section 234A20
Double Taxation/DTAA17
Section 43B15
For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92

Transfer Pricing Officer / the DRP in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect. 2.3 The appellant submits that the learned AO be directed to delete the upward adjustment of Rs. 427,264,082 made by him to the appellant's total income and to re-compute its total income and tax liability thereon accordingly. Ground No. 3: Disallowance of production

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 14 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6648/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Circle-16(2) 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Vatika Business Park, New Delhi Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

Price ("CUP") method. 15. The learned AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)of the Act. 16. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act while completely disregarding the provisions of the Act and the judicial precedence.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee is a resident

BT E- SERV (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 99/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 565/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Bt E-Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Ward-5(2), Vs. Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcb2533M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrandra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

sections 234B and 234D of the Act while completely disregarding the provisions of the Act and the judicial precedence.” 5. Though the assessee has raised 24 grounds in this appeal divided into first 13 grounds on Transfer Pricing

SH. EVALUESERVE.COM PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4001/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: i. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv ii. Sh. Sumit Lal ChandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 234BSection 271Section 92Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Study; (b) making erroneous inclusion and exclusion in the set of comparable companies by using erroneous quantitative filers in the search process; (c) using the data of the Financial Year 2005-06 for the comparable companies despite the same being not available to the Assessee at the time of preparation of the documentation under Rule

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 Pricing Officer („IPO‟). 2.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering the following companies in the final set of comparables for the purpose of benchmarking analysis not appreciating that these companies are functionally not comparable to the appellant: a. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. (seg) b. Mindtree Ltd. c. Thirdware Solutions Limited 2.2 That

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 Pricing Officer („IPO‟). 2.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering the following companies in the final set of comparables for the purpose of benchmarking analysis not appreciating that these companies are functionally not comparable to the appellant: a. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. (seg) b. Mindtree Ltd. c. Thirdware Solutions Limited 2.2 That

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 Pricing Officer („IPO‟). 2.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering the following companies in the final set of comparables for the purpose of benchmarking analysis not appreciating that these companies are functionally not comparable to the appellant: a. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. (seg) b. Mindtree Ltd. c. Thirdware Solutions Limited 2.2 That

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

ITA 1057/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Verma, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 92C

section 92C(3) of the Act are not satisfied in the present case. 5. Without prejudice to Ground no. 2, on facts and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant in line with the Rule 10B(2) of the Rules to determine the arm's length price of international

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

ITA 1154/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Verma, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 92C

section 92C(3) of the Act are not satisfied in the present case. 5. Without prejudice to Ground no. 2, on facts and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant in line with the Rule 10B(2) of the Rules to determine the arm's length price of international

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

ITA 3207/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Verma, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 92C

section 92C(3) of the Act are not satisfied in the present case. 5. Without prejudice to Ground no. 2, on facts and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant in line with the Rule 10B(2) of the Rules to determine the arm's length price of international

A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in

ITA 2623/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, (India Branch Office), Circle 1(1), 6Th Floor, Tower D, New Delhi. Vs Global Business Park, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aadca1436G) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Ms Vrinda Tulsiyan, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

transfer pricing adjustment made by the appellant. B.2 Set off of brought forward loss. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing set off of brought forward loss of Rs. 5,389,388 as claimed

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

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 11. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred in law and facts withdrawing interest under section 244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act and alleging that

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

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 11. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred in law and facts withdrawing interest under section 244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act and alleging that

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

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

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 11. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred in law and facts withdrawing interest under section 244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act and alleging that

BLACKROCK SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiblack Rock Services India Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Hsidc Building Vanijya Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabch4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Black Rock Services India Private The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Limited, Income Tax , 3Rd Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Circle-1(1), Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabch4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92CSection 92D

Transfer Pricing („TP‟) documentation maintained by the Appellant under section 92D of the Act and Rule 10D of the Rules and disregarding the arm‟s length price („ALP‟) as determined by the Appellant in the TP documentation; 2.3 disregarding the fact that the Appellant is a captive IT enabled service provider which does not bear substantial risks associated with

BLACKROCK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1671/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiblack Rock Services India Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Hsidc Building Vanijya Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabch4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Black Rock Services India Private The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Limited, Income Tax , 3Rd Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Circle-1(1), Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabch4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92CSection 92D

Transfer Pricing („TP‟) documentation maintained by the Appellant under section 92D of the Act and Rule 10D of the Rules and disregarding the arm‟s length price („ALP‟) as determined by the Appellant in the TP documentation; 2.3 disregarding the fact that the Appellant is a captive IT enabled service provider which does not bear substantial risks associated with

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

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

ITA 991/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1267/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9000/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent