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.

930 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 32(1)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,087Delhi930Hyderabad252Chennai236Bangalore215Ahmedabad157Jaipur132Chandigarh126Kolkata91Indore91Rajkot76Cochin69Pune62Surat36Raipur34Visakhapatnam28Nagpur22Lucknow22Cuttack22Guwahati18Amritsar7Jodhpur6Varanasi6Dehradun5Allahabad4Agra3Patna1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income55Section 143(3)44Transfer Pricing32Deduction28Double Taxation/DTAA27Disallowance25Permanent Establishment21Section 92C20Comparables/TP

(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

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 92B

Showing 1–20 of 930 · Page 1 of 47

...
19
Section 44D18
Section 14A16
Section 143(2)15
Section 92C
Section 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

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

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

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act. During such proceedings, - the TPO, vide notice dated 25.02.2021, inter-alia, required the assessee to submit the details of change in shareholding structure and other international transactions [refer pages 97-98 of paperbook]; and - in response thereto, the appellantvide reply dated 07.07.2021 submitted (as Annexure-11 to the reply

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2014-15

ITA 2741/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2014-15

ITA 2742/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
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

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

ITA/124/2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

ii) “relevant assessment years” means the five consec­utive assessment years specified by the assessee at his option under sub- section (3);]] [(iii) “manufacture” includes any— (a) process, or (b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

ITA-83/2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

ii) “relevant assessment years” means the five consec­utive assessment years specified by the assessee at his option under sub- section (3);]] [(iii) “manufacture” includes any— (a) process, or (b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

ITA/83/2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

ii) “relevant assessment years” means the five consec­utive assessment years specified by the assessee at his option under sub- section (3);]] [(iii) “manufacture” includes any— (a) process, or (b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

ITA-124/2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

ii) “relevant assessment years” means the five consec­utive assessment years specified by the assessee at his option under sub- section (3);]] [(iii) “manufacture” includes any— (a) process, or (b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits

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

II the eligible industrial undertaking on which deduction is allowable. The learned assessing officer noted that during the year, units located at Noida processing Kathha and another unit at Noida processing supari has transferred processed raw material/semi finished goods to the undertaking which is eligible for deduction amounting to ? 658,619,082/- and Rs. 792,144,556/- respectively. The learned

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that lease for a period of ten years of plant and machinery along with land and building was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that lease for a period of ten years of plant and machinery along with land and building was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations contained in the preceding paragraphs

ITA 508/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

Section 92D(1) and Rule 10D(1) and Rule 10D(4) of the Rules direct that, the comparison should be based on contemporaneous data. It needs to be appreciated that requirement of the existence of information and documentation doesn’t override the provisions of Rule 10B(4)of the Rules regarding the mandatory use of current financial year data

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

Section 92F (v), an international transaction could include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, this cannot be a matter of inference. There has to be some tangible evidence on record to show that two parties have "acted in concert". XXX XXX XXX 37. The provisions under Chapter X do envisage a 'separate entity concept'. In other words, there cannot

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

Section 92F (v), an international transaction could include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, this cannot be a matter of inference. There has to be some tangible evidence on record to show that two parties have "acted in concert". XXX XXX XXX 37. The provisions under Chapter X do envisage a 'separate entity concept'. In other words, there cannot

GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSET LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 930/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Green Infra Wind Farm Asset Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.8, Circle-10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaecg4080H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ca & Shri Biren Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

transferred, shall be increased or decreased, as the case may be, by the amount or the aggregate of the amounts referred to in the said sub-clause relatable to such foreign operations. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression— (i)"year of convergence" means the previous year within which the convergence date falls; (ii)"convergence date" means

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1583/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

ii) of point No. 1 of this, being valuation of permanent investments, which has been pressed into service by the learned authorized representative, reds as under: “Permanent” investments should be valued at cost and in case cost price is higher than the face value, the premium should be amortized over the remaining period of maturity of the security