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.

2,544 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 32(1)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,544Mumbai2,187Bangalore977Ahmedabad449Chennai427Hyderabad385Kolkata382Karnataka367Pune280Jaipur270Chandigarh204Surat201Indore177Cochin133Rajkot77SC62Visakhapatnam56Calcutta56Telangana48Cuttack48Raipur43Lucknow38Nagpur31Guwahati23Amritsar16Agra13Varanasi10Jodhpur10Dehradun9Rajasthan9A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN8Ranchi7Kerala5Allahabad5Orissa5Panaji3Punjab & Haryana2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Jabalpur1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Patna1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income64Section 143(3)54Disallowance36Section 14A26Section 4024Transfer Pricing24Section 92C23Deduction20Double Taxation/DTAA20

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 483/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

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

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

32(1 )(ii) of the Act. 4.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and section 234D of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant.” 3. The assessee is engaged

PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Showing 1–20 of 2,544 · Page 1 of 128

...
Section 14317
Section 153A17
Section 144C15
ITA 289/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32

ii) The government authorization is were specifically mentioned as transferable assets under clause 2.2(e) of the ‘BTA’ and the specific authorization transferred to the assessee were also listed in the schedule 2.2 (e) of the BTA ( refer page 13 and 50 volume 1 of paper book). Such government authorizations are transferable and same were actually transferred in the name

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances? 4. If answer to question Nos.2 and 3 is in favour

AREVA T & D INDIA LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

ITA-315/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2012
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)(ii)

price paid for acquisition of above mentioned intangible assets. (vii) The Assessing Officer(AO) while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act disallowed the depreciation on „goodwill‟ as claimed in the return vide order dated 28th December, 2007. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee Company on two grounds, namely, (a) depreciation under Section 32

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/938/2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Ms Suruchi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mayank Nagi &
Section 144CSection 260ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92E

32,92,83,589/- attributable to the difference in arm’s length price of the international transactions entered into between the assessee and its associated enterprise. The said adjustment was made by the Assessing Officer by virtue of the assessment order dated 19.10.2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

ITA/156/2022HC Delhi07 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 92BSection 92F

1) which sets out the different methods of determining the arm's length price, makes it clear that the transfer pricing adjustment is made by substituting the arm's length price for the price of the transaction. To begin with there has to be an international transaction with a certain disclosed price. The transfer pricing adjustment envisages the substitution

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA)PVT.LTD.

ITA/155/2022HC Delhi07 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 92BSection 92F

1) which sets out the different methods of determining the arm's length price, makes it clear that the transfer pricing adjustment is made by substituting the arm's length price for the price of the transaction. To begin with there has to be an international transaction with a certain disclosed price. The transfer pricing adjustment envisages the substitution

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 6937/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Mishra, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 928(1)

32(1) of the Act, without appreciating that additional depreciation being optional in nature, is not covered within the purview of the said Explanation. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in holding that the profit and loss account prepared by the Appellant was not in accordance with Part II

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

ITA/321/2013HC Delhi18 Mar 2014

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 260A

transfer” inclusively for the purpose of levying capital gains, would be 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 25 of 40 applicable and capital gains would have been declared by the APIL but in view of APIL’s reply, the assessing officer concluded that possession of the land was not given to the assessee. He further noted that

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

ii) However the assessee has contended that its main role in this year was to provide coordination and facilitation services to its AE. This fact has not been disputed by the TPO and it is also to be made clear that the assessee has to be suitable compensated for such activities. There are detailed agreements with

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4771/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 234DSection 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

transferred workforce and supplier contracts including the right to provide logistics services to IBM India for a maximum period of 15 years. The appellant has characterised these as goodwill and claimed depreciation on the same at the rate of 25% under section 32(i)(ii) of the Act. 20. However, the claim of the assessee was dismissed by the Assessing

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

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

ii) specifically defines Arm‟s Length Price as a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions. ITA 306/2012 Page 29 31. To compute arm‟s length price of an assessee, several methods are prescribed under Section 92C of IT Act. As per this provision

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)

II. If yes, then when and how much ? Having seen that the discount under ESOP is a deductible expenditure under section 37(1), the next question is that 'when' and for 'how much' amount should the deduction be granted ? The assessee is a limited company and hence it is obliged to maintain its accounts on mercantile basis. Under such system

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)

II. If yes, then when and how much ? Having seen that the discount under ESOP is a deductible expenditure under section 37(1), the next question is that 'when' and for 'how much' amount should the deduction be granted ? The assessee is a limited company and hence it is obliged to maintain its accounts on mercantile basis. Under such system

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

ITA/52/2023HC Delhi02 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

ii) or clause (iii) of sub- section (4) of Section 12-AB, as the case may be, is received by Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page 42 of 74 the Assessing Officer,] shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

ITA/993/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

ii) or clause (iii) of sub- section (4) of Section 12-AB, as the case may be, is received by Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page 42 of 74 the Assessing Officer,] shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

ITA/995/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

ii) or clause (iii) of sub- section (4) of Section 12-AB, as the case may be, is received by Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page 42 of 74 the Assessing Officer,] shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period

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

1. Whether the additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising Marketing and Promotion Expenses ('AMP Expenses' for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer with regard to retrospective amendment to Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2012. 2. Whether

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

1. Whether the additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising Marketing and Promotion Expenses ('AMP Expenses' for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer with regard to retrospective amendment to Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2012. 2. Whether