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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai121Delhi80Ahmedabad71Chandigarh64Chennai52Hyderabad33Kolkata32Bangalore32Jaipur17Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam10Raipur10Pune8Indore5Karnataka4Lucknow4Guwahati3SC3Surat3Cuttack2Amritsar2Cochin2Telangana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income50Section 143(3)49Disallowance39Transfer Pricing35Section 43B34Section 92C31Section 144C28Deduction27Section 36(1)(va)23Section 80G

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 80 · Page 1 of 4

22
Section 143(2)20
Comparables/TP19

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

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3257/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

36(1)(va) of the Act? 5. Whether the CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified ITA Nos. 3257 & 3492/Del/2013 6 Dabur India Ltd. in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,05,088/- made by the AO on account of expenditure incurred at club? 6. Whether the CIT(A) under the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3492/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

36(1)(va) of the Act? 5. Whether the CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified ITA Nos. 3257 & 3492/Del/2013 6 Dabur India Ltd. in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,05,088/- made by the AO on account of expenditure incurred at club? 6. Whether the CIT(A) under the facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -IV vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LTD

Appeals are allowed and orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the

ITA/1208/2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 4Section 43B

va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date. Explanation [1] : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where a deduction in respect of any sum referred to in clause (a) or clause

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

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

VA ofPaperbook) (i) T he allocation of the technology expenses have been made on cost to cost basis. Evidence that allocation is on cost to cost is in form of Global Cost Allocation Policy (Pages 773 to 788 of Volume IV of Paperbook) certified by Price Waterhouse Coopers vide their report. (Pages 789 to 826 of Volume IV of Paperbook

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

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

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

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

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8006/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 8006/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 & Sa No. 969/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 8006/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Jcit, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Special Range-4, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg3511H Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr & Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing :25.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing regulations and an arm’s length price thereof has been determined, there could not be any further disallowance of the said payment under section 37(1) of the Act, holding the same to be not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the appellant. Reliance 7 SA No. 969/Del/2018 Goodyear India

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

36(l)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 8. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,57,45,700/- made u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. 9. On the fact