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.

13 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai42Delhi13Rajkot4Chandigarh4Pune3Jaipur3Lucknow2Indore2Visakhapatnam1Cuttack1SC1Surat1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 92C16Section 271G16Section 44A12Section 80J7Section 1437Section 143(3)6Section 271A6Penalty6Transfer Pricing5Disallowance

ATEPL RAHEE JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1570/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 1Section 2Section 271Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H section 271-1, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub- section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

5
Section 92D4
Addition to Income4

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JDSU INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 1478/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation requirements. 15. Without prejudice to above, in the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned AO /TPO / DRP have erred in not using Resale Price Method as the most appropriate method for computation of arm’s length price for the impugned transaction. Rejection/Selection of comparable companies 16. The learned AO / TPO/ DRP have

M/S VIAVI SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 231/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation requirements. 15. Without prejudice to above, in the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned AO /TPO / DRP have erred in not using Resale Price Method as the most appropriate method for computation of arm’s length price for the impugned transaction. Rejection/Selection of comparable companies 16. The learned AO / TPO/ DRP have

VIAVI SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY JDSU INDIA PVT. LTD),GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 1483/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation requirements. 15. Without prejudice to above, in the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned AO /TPO / DRP have erred in not using Resale Price Method as the most appropriate method for computation of arm’s length price for the impugned transaction. Rejection/Selection of comparable companies 16. The learned AO / TPO/ DRP have

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 92CA or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value of the international transaction or specified domestic transaction] for each such failure.” 16. Provisions of Section 273B are as under: “Penalty not to be imposed

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 92CA or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value of the international transaction or specified domestic transaction] for each such failure.” 16. Provisions of Section 273B are as under: “Penalty not to be imposed

MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment u/s 92CA(3) of the Act by holding that the international transaction pertaining to provision of Information Technology ("IT") services and Information Technology enabled services ("ITeS") to its associated enterprise ("AE") are in the nature of Knowledge Process Outsourcing ("KPO") services and do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act. In doing

M/S. MICHELIN INDIA TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT(OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue is

ITA 2415/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aadcm8454G. Vs The Jcit (Osd), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 92C

271B, without appreciating that the Appellant has maintained proper books of accounts and tax audit report which were duly audited by chartered account within the time lines prescribed under section 44AB. 6. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing as infructuous the grounds of appeal which contended that the AO has erred on facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MICHELIN INDIA TYRES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue is

ITA 2946/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aadcm8454G. Vs The Jcit (Osd), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 92C

271B, without appreciating that the Appellant has maintained proper books of accounts and tax audit report which were duly audited by chartered account within the time lines prescribed under section 44AB. 6. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing as infructuous the grounds of appeal which contended that the AO has erred on facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

ITA 1909/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT
Section 143Section 144C

pricing study report of the profit attribution study was furnished by the appellant for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further stated that appellant did not furnish any reply or other documents before the assessing officer consequent to the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel. Further with respect to the assessment year 2010 – 11, he further stated that even though

DCIT CIRCLE 61(1), DELHI vs. SUKHBIR SINGH CHABRA HUF, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

Section 234C of the Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271A, 271B and u/s 271(1 )(c ) of the Income Tax Act. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal

BRIJ RAJ SINGH RATHAUR,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-41, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

Section 234C of the Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271A, 271B and u/s 271(1 )(c ) of the Income Tax Act. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271A

271B of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal and add any other ground of appeal.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 & 2, the grievance of the department relates to the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to treat the surplus amount of Rs.81