Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

63 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka290 Pune77 Mumbai75 Delhi63 Hyderabad42 Bangalore32 Raipur17 Kolkata14 Jaipur10 Chennai8 SC7 Surat5 Telangana3 Rajkot2 Ahmedabad2 Lucknow1 Chandigarh1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14341 Addition to Income36 Section 153A26 Section 32(1)(ii)24 Section 143(3)22 Search & Seizure20 Disallowance20 Section 14817 Depreciation

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

section (3).] [(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order

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

section (3).] [(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

15

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

section (3).] [(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1682/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR

sections 92 to 92F of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) were made effective from 1 April 2001 (i.e. from AY 2002- 03 which is the first AY under consideration). The ITA Nos. 752, 1682 & 4195/Del/2009 5 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd. Assessee and its consultant were not fully aware about the practices regarding determination

DENTSPLY INDIA PVT LTD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 752/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR

sections 92 to 92F of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) were made effective from 1 April 2001 (i.e. from AY 2002- 03 which is the first AY under consideration). The ITA Nos. 752, 1682 & 4195/Del/2009 5 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd. Assessee and its consultant were not fully aware about the practices regarding determination

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4195/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR

sections 92 to 92F of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) were made effective from 1 April 2001 (i.e. from AY 2002- 03 which is the first AY under consideration). The ITA Nos. 752, 1682 & 4195/Del/2009 5 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd. Assessee and its consultant were not fully aware about the practices regarding determination

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

price at Rs.22.58 lakhs. 81. So far as Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that Rate of 3% is mentioned in the amended agreement and the assessee could not meet its obligation to bear entire marketing expenses and therefore, Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd, Nepal did not pay any royalty. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) applied

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, 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 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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

price at Rs.22.58 lakhs. 81. So far as Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that Rate of 3% is mentioned in the amended agreement and the assessee could not meet its obligation to bear entire marketing expenses and therefore, Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd, Nepal did not pay any royalty. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) applied

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 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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

price at Rs.22.58 lakhs. 81. So far as Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that Rate of 3% is mentioned in the amended agreement and the assessee could not meet its obligation to bear entire marketing expenses and therefore, Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd, Nepal did not pay any royalty. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) applied

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, 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 3241/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

price at Rs.22.58 lakhs. 81. So far as Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that Rate of 3% is mentioned in the amended agreement and the assessee could not meet its obligation to bear entire marketing expenses and therefore, Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd, Nepal did not pay any royalty. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) applied

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1883/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 254Section 263Section 264

section (3). 49[(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2144/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 254Section 263Section 264

section (3). 49[(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order

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

transfer pricing should get affected and not the other corporate additions because the passing of draft assessment order was never disputed. This becomes more important because of the fact that the corporate addition i.e. disallowance of employees contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(5a) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the IT Act of Rs. 4,24,39,963/- has been

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO vide order dated 21.01.2013 made following adjustments to the returned income of the assessee: 1 Adjustment on account of payment of royalty for use Rs. 311.74 cr. of brand name 2 Adjustment on account of AMP Rs. 136 cr. Total Adjustment to be made Rs. 447.74 cr. Draft Assessment Order was passed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3209/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

5A project which should be excluded as per COTA agreement. Appellant revised its return of income for the A Y 2008-09 and exclude Rs. 56.61 million from the value of closing stock and 34 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. corresponding reducing income. Copy of relevant extract of audited financial statement of FY 2008-09. However, the Ld. AD in completing

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7435/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

5A project which should be excluded as per COTA agreement. Appellant revised its return of income for the A Y 2008-09 and exclude Rs. 56.61 million from the value of closing stock and 34 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. corresponding reducing income. Copy of relevant extract of audited financial statement of FY 2008-09. However, the Ld. AD in completing

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2119/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

5A project which should be excluded as per COTA agreement. Appellant revised its return of income for the A Y 2008-09 and exclude Rs. 56.61 million from the value of closing stock and 34 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. corresponding reducing income. Copy of relevant extract of audited financial statement of FY 2008-09. However, the Ld. AD in completing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3210/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

5A project which should be excluded as per COTA agreement. Appellant revised its return of income for the A Y 2008-09 and exclude Rs. 56.61 million from the value of closing stock and 34 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. corresponding reducing income. Copy of relevant extract of audited financial statement of FY 2008-09. However, the Ld. AD in completing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3816/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

5A project which should be excluded as per COTA agreement. Appellant revised its return of income for the A Y 2008-09 and exclude Rs. 56.61 million from the value of closing stock and 34 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. corresponding reducing income. Copy of relevant extract of audited financial statement of FY 2008-09. However, the Ld. AD in completing

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6281/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

5A project which should be excluded as per COTA agreement. Appellant revised its return of income for the A Y 2008-09 and exclude Rs. 56.61 million from the value of closing stock and 34 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. corresponding reducing income. Copy of relevant extract of audited financial statement of FY 2008-09. However, the Ld. AD in completing