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.

96 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 35Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi96Mumbai45Bangalore41Chennai11Hyderabad11Kolkata7Pune4Ahmedabad3SC3Chandigarh3Dehradun2Panaji2Visakhapatnam1Cochin1Jaipur1Karnataka1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)70Section 144C63Section 92C32Addition to Income31Transfer Pricing28Disallowance23Deduction22Section 144C(13)20Comparables/TP19

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

Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 8. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are general in nature and in fact, support Ground Nos. 3 to 6 of the grounds of appeal, therefore they do not deserve any adjudication specifically, and hence they are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 3 is with respect to the rejection

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Showing 1–20 of 96 · Page 1 of 5

Section 144C(1)13
Section 14A12
Section 263(1)12
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

Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 8. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are general in nature and in fact, support Ground Nos. 3 to 6 of the grounds of appeal, therefore they do not deserve any adjudication specifically, and hence they are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 3 is with respect to the rejection

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

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

35A March, 2015 Re-characterization of expenses Upheld at Para 64 page 48 of 142 and incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 7691/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

35A March, 2015 Re-characterization of expenses Upheld at Para 64 page 48 of 142 and incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1662/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

35A March, 2015 Re-characterization of expenses Upheld at Para 64 page 48 of 142 and incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7376/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92F

35A dt.16March, 2015 Re-characterization of expenses Upheld at Para 64 page 48 of 142 incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section 92C, the Assessing

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 8700/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

35A dt.16March, 2015 Re-characterization of expenses Upheld at Para 64 page 48 of 142 incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section 92C, the Assessing

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

price of the international transaction of IT services was determined by selecting 14 comparable companies whose average profit level indicator was 16.89%. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 63. The first contention of the assessee is that there is an incorrect computation of operating profit margin of the assessee as foreign exchange income amounting

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

price of the international transaction of IT services was determined by selecting 14 comparable companies whose average profit level indicator was 16.89%. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 63. The first contention of the assessee is that there is an incorrect computation of operating profit margin of the assessee as foreign exchange income amounting

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

price of the international transaction of IT services was determined by selecting 14 comparable companies whose average profit level indicator was 16.89%. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 63. The first contention of the assessee is that there is an incorrect computation of operating profit margin of the assessee as foreign exchange income amounting

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3132/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., 1A-D, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Vandana Building, Vs. C.R. Building, Ip Estate, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Acit (Osd), Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Cit-V, Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ito, Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Ward-13(3), Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi C.R. Building, Pan:Aaaca0443N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 92

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. That the order passed by Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and Hon'ble CIT(A) is bad in law and void ab-initio. 5 | P a g e M/s Nobel Resources and Trading India Private Limited V DCIT & DCIT V M/s Nobel Resources and Trading India Private Limited ITA No 3132 & 3155/Del/2013

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NOBLE RESOURCE AND TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3155/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., 1A-D, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Vandana Building, Vs. C.R. Building, Ip Estate, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Acit (Osd), Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Cit-V, Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ito, Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Ward-13(3), Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi C.R. Building, Pan:Aaaca0443N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 92

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. That the order passed by Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and Hon'ble CIT(A) is bad in law and void ab-initio. 5 | P a g e M/s Nobel Resources and Trading India Private Limited V DCIT & DCIT V M/s Nobel Resources and Trading India Private Limited ITA No 3132 & 3155/Del/2013

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6470/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., 1A-D, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Vandana Building, Vs. C.R. Building, Ip Estate, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Acit (Osd), Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Cit-V, Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ito, Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Ward-13(3), Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi C.R. Building, Pan:Aaaca0443N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 92

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. That the order passed by Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and Hon'ble CIT(A) is bad in law and void ab-initio. 5 | P a g e M/s Nobel Resources and Trading India Private Limited V DCIT & DCIT V M/s Nobel Resources and Trading India Private Limited ITA No 3132 & 3155/Del/2013

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2227/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

Section 144C(5) . The DRP procedure can only be initiated by an assessee objecting to the draft assessment order. This would enable correction in the proposed order (draft assessment order) before a final assessment order is passed. Therefore, we are of the view that in the present facts this issue could be agitated before and rectified

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VRV BREWERIES & BOTTELING

ITA/594/2005HC Delhi19 Aug 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Ms Rashmi Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Ms Kavita Jha & Mr Somnath Shukla

transfer pricing. Accordingly, he disallowed a sum of ` 24,70,929/- out of the total sum claimed, i.e., ` 84,01,160/- under Section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act. As regards the balance sum, i.e., ` 59,30,231/- (84,01,160 – 24,70,929) he applied the provisions of Section 35A

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S V.R.V. BREWERIES & BOTTELI

ITA/559/2006HC Delhi19 Aug 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Ms Rashmi Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Ms Kavita Jha & Mr Somnath Shukla

transfer pricing. Accordingly, he disallowed a sum of ` 24,70,929/- out of the total sum claimed, i.e., ` 84,01,160/- under Section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act. As regards the balance sum, i.e., ` 59,30,231/- (84,01,160 – 24,70,929) he applied the provisions of Section 35A

HALDOR TOPSOE (I) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 654/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. H.P. Aggarwal, FCA, and Ms. Prashuka Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

35A:- 1. a) The action of learned Transfer Pricing Officer of adding new companies to the list of Comparables and rejecting companies fairly selected by the taxpayer is not scientific / methodical and is on arbitrary basis. b) The order passed by the AO / TPO is bad in law being against the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

section 40A (2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered by the assessee on account of commercial expediency and when the recipients had paid tax on payments received from the assessee company, disallowance could not be made by applying provisions of section

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

transfer pricing addition on account of the corporate guarantee commission of ₹ 103,485,509/– iii. disallowance u/s 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 22,521,366/– iv. charge of interest on external commercial borrowing of ₹ 518,00,31,066 to be taxed at the rate of 10% as per the provisions of article 11 of the Double Taxation

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Transfer pricing adjustment on account of Software services 14. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld.TPO/ Hon’ble DRP erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR8,30,19,139/- for the assessment year under consideration by benchmarking the SISC (Application software) and SARD (Embedded software) software divisions