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.

55 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai82Chandigarh64Delhi55Chennai27Ahmedabad26Hyderabad18Jaipur14Jodhpur10Kolkata7Raipur6Bangalore6Pune4Surat3Lucknow3Cuttack2Cochin1Indore1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)35Addition to Income31Disallowance30Section 144C23Transfer Pricing23Section 36(1)(va)21Section 43B21Deduction20Section 80G18Section 154

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

36. Strictly without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is further pertinent to note that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the assessing officer without following the binding directions of the DRP as is explained hereunder: (a) The DRP had held that draft assessment order under section 144C(1) was passed in breach of the provisions of section 144B

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 143(2)13
Section 92C12

AVIAXPERT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 87/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.87/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Avia Xpert Pvt. Ltd. Ito, E-178, East Of Kailash, Vs. Ward 3(1), New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica7960L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) of the Act before passing rectification order u/s 154 of the Act. 11. We observe that in the case of ACIT Vs. Humboldt Wedag Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the coordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal held that it is obligatory under the statute to issue notice by the tax authorities and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard

TURNER & TOWNSEND PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8763/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Mrinal Kumar, Sr. DFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar, Sr. D
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

36(l)(va) within the time allowed as per the relevant statute. Total 81,34,504 3.1. The facts, in brief, regarding the impugned addition(s) made by the Ld. AO/ TPO are outlined herein below: 5 Turner & Townsend Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT A. As regards the addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA read with

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON vs. BELLSONICA AUTO COMPONENT SH. INDIA PRIVATE LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 1625/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Ms. Sonam Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(l)(va) of the Act 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted an addition of INR 4,326,453/- made u/s 36(1)(va). 3.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2283/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

36(1)(va) Rs. 1,42,72,897/- r.w.s. 2(24)(x) Total Assessed Income Rs. 45,93,89,452/- 3.2 The claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) was denied and taken as ‘NIL’. Accordingly, the final assessment was completed on 29.07.2022 by the Ld. AO under section 143(3)/ 92CA/ 144C(13) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved thereby

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 346/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

transfer pricing report, applying TNMM, erroneously concluding that the appellant has determined the ALP of trading transaction by comparing its entity wide margin with comparable companies. 4.2 That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in applying RPM with internal comparable not appreciating that the non-AE segment too, has substantial related party transaction as almost

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

transfer pricing report, applying TNMM, erroneously concluding that the appellant has determined the ALP of trading transaction by comparing its entity wide margin with comparable companies. 4.2 That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in applying RPM with internal comparable not appreciating that the non-AE segment too, has substantial related party transaction as almost

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 1,08,85,080/- 2(24)(x), as discussed in para 2.5.4 Less Disallowance of deduction claimed NIL u/s. 80IA as discussed in para 2.5.5 Total assessed income Rs. 49,81,91,872/- 4.3 The claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) was denied and taken as ‘NIL’. Accordingly, the final assessment was completed

FIL INDIA BUSINESS & RESEARCH PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), C.R BUILDING , DELHI

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

ITA 1948/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 920Section 92CSection 92C(3)

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144B", "92CA", "92C(3)", "92D", "100", "36(1)(Va)", "138", "36(1)(Va)", "234C", "234B", "209", "139", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether the transfer pricing

TERADATA INDIA PVT LTD,GRUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/ Learned AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned transaction. ITA Nos. 1248 & 2337/Del/2022 (A) ITA Nos. 1430/Del/2022 (R) Teradata India Pvt. Ltd 4. That on facts

ACIT-CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON vs. TERADATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1430/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/ Learned AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned transaction. ITA Nos. 1248 & 2337/Del/2022 (A) ITA Nos. 1430/Del/2022 (R) Teradata India Pvt. Ltd 4. That on facts

TERADATA INDIA P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1248/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/ Learned AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned transaction. ITA Nos. 1248 & 2337/Del/2022 (A) ITA Nos. 1430/Del/2022 (R) Teradata India Pvt. Ltd 4. That on facts

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 758/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 153ASection 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act. 5.2 Alternatively, the Ld. AO has erred in appreciating the fact and the law that the expenses incurred was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and should be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making adjustment

MOBASE INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dua, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43(6)Section 43B

36(1)(va) and treating the same income of the assessee under section 2 (24)(x) of the Income Tax Act,1961, without considering that the provisions of section 43B are applicable to such payment as the payment has been deposited before filing of Income Tax Return as per section 139(1) of the Act. 5.2 The Assessing Officer erred

AERO CLUB,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2957/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Pradip Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

36(1)(va) inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2021 is prospective in nature and does not apply to the year under consideration Le FY 2017-18. 10) That the Ld. TPO and consequently the Ld. AO have erred in law and in the circumstances of the appellant by initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for underreporting of income.” 4 Aero

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNIPARTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), assessee was a part of Gripwell Group. 6. During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into various international transactions with its AEs. However, except the transaction relating to interest charged on loans advanced to AEs, the TPO accepted all other transactions to be at arm’s length. In so far as 3 ITA No.6056/Del./2017

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. GARG ACRYLICS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5915/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete, Sr.D.R
Section 116Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 14ASection 153Section 92B

36(1)(va) and not by section 43 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the act”) 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.14,400/- made by AO on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred on Club Fees of Directors, failing to appreciate the claim

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5214/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete, Sr.D.R
Section 116Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 14ASection 153Section 92B

36(1)(va) and not by section 43 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the act”) 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.14,400/- made by AO on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred on Club Fees of Directors, failing to appreciate the claim

GRID CONTROLLER OF INDIA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS POWER SYSTEM OPERATION CORPORATION LTD),DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2326/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagrid Controller Of India Vs. Dcit (Formerly Known As Power System Circle-19(1), Operation Corporation Ltd) Delhi. B-9, 1St Floor, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, Hauz Khas, South Delhi, New Delhi Pan No. Aafcp2086B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 50

price of the asset is reduced from WDV for the purpose of calculation of depreciation. Hence this amount was 3 excluded from income but has been added in the computation u/s 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2.3 Lastly grants in aid of Rs.38,45,173/- is a non current liability being of capital nature, hence

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3671/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, 16(1), Vs Microsoft Corporation (India) New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessment Year: 2015-16 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-6, 807, New Delhi House, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of the international transactions entered by the Assessee with its associated enterprises during the year under consideration. 2.1 During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO required the assessee to show cause why advertisement, publicity and sales promotion expenditure should not be considered as capital in nature as it is of enduring benefit going