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.

50 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 80Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai72Delhi50Pune24Kolkata22Bangalore22Rajkot11Hyderabad11Chennai10Indore7Jaipur6Agra3Cochin3Jodhpur2Amritsar2Ahmedabad2Nagpur1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 80G49Section 92C48Section 143(3)35Transfer Pricing28Section 10A23Deduction22Addition to Income19Comparables/TP17Disallowance16Section 80I

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO to the income of the appellant not appreciating that the addition / disallowance ought to have been restricted to the deduction under section 80IC/80IE of the Act 3.2 That the assessing officer / TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee being an entrepreneur is engaged in activities such

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

14
TP Method13
Section 12A11

AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI / NFAC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5912/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwalamway India Enterprises Private Dcit, Limited, Circle-1(1), Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Vs. Delhi/Nfac. Plot No.8, Non Hierarchical Commercial, Jasola, Delhi-110025. Pan-Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92C

transfer pricing regulations. 9. The Ld. TPO/AO/DRP has erred on facts and in law in holding AMP expense incurred by the assessee as an international transaction under section 928 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without proving existence of any actual understanding/arrangement between the assessee and the associated enterprise to invoke the provisions of section

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

80G respectively. Part 1-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 transactions. 4. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO/ Learned

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

80G respectively. Part 1-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 transactions. 4. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO/ Learned

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

80G respectively. Part 1-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 transactions. 4. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO/ Learned

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4477/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\N\Nita No. 4477/Del/2024\N[Assessment Year: 2020-21]\N\N| Genpact Services Llc,\Nplot 22A & B, Sector 18,\Nudyog Vihar,\Ngurgaon, Haryana-122002\Npan-Aaccg3353P\Nappellant\N|\Nassistant Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-International Tax-1(3)(1),\Nvs Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\N| Appellant By\Nshri Vishal Kalra, Adv.,\Nms. Reema Malik, Adv.& Ms.\Nsnigdha Gautam, Adv.\Nrespondent By\Nshri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N30.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N31.07.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The\Nassessing Officer Dated 29.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act') In Pursuance To The\Ndirections Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 25.06.2024 Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2020-21.\N2. The Relevant Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Indian Branch Office Of\Ngenpact Llc, A Usa Company. The Assessee Is A Service Provider\Nrendering Off-Shore Support Services Akin To Bpo Services, Including\Ncollections/Analytics Call Centre Services & Other Back-Office Support\Nservices To Its Aes. The Assessee Is Responsible For Rendering The\Ndesignated Bpo / Collections Services From Its Facility / Infrastructure In\Nindia. As For Assessment Year 2020-21, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of\Nincome (Roi') Declaring An Income Of Inr 20,57,10,540/- On 07.01.2021.\Nduring The Course Of Scrutiny, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S\N92Ca Of The Act To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo') To Determine The\Narm'S Length Price (‘Alp') In Respect Of International Transaction Entered\Ninto By The Assessee.\N2.

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 92C

section (3) of Sec. 92CA, the A.Ο\nshall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee under sub-\nsection (4) of Sec. 92C in conformity with the arm's length price so\ndetermined by the TPO. As is discernible from the order of the DRP, it\nwas the claim of the assessee that now when the Asst.\nCommissioner

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

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

ITA 5256/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 55,24,75,64,890 (including substantive adjustment of INR 33,32,45,52,030; and protective adjustment of INR 21,92,30,12,860); in addition to the adjustment on account of corporate tax matters namely (i) disallowance on account of salary paid to expatriates and (ii) disallowance of deduction under section 80G

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

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

ITA 3724/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 55,24,75,64,890 (including substantive adjustment of INR 33,32,45,52,030; and protective adjustment of INR 21,92,30,12,860); in addition to the adjustment on account of corporate tax matters namely (i) disallowance on account of salary paid to expatriates and (ii) disallowance of deduction under section 80G

HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD. ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

ITA 1523/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing approach for determining the ALP of this international transaction and further failed to bring any evidence on record that the payment of export commission was in any way excessive as compared to independent transactions of similar nature. 8.9 That the TPO/ DRP erred in rejecting the alternate analysis submitted by the Appellant using CUP as a most appropriate

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PRIVATE LIMITED,MANESAR, GURGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3684/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Agilent Technologies Vs. Dcit, (International) Private Limited, Circle 1(1), Plot No.Cp-11, Sector 8, Imt, Gurgaon Manesar, (Haryana) Gurgaon - 122051 Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Mayank Khannam, Akhil GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 19Section 21Section 92C

transfer pricing pertaining to interest from outstanding receivables being unsustainable in law is set aside. Accordingly, ground of appeal no. 2 is allowed. 8. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee regarding ground of appeal no.4, qua rejecting deduction of Rs.36,29,883/- claimed under Section 80G

VAIDYA MANGAT RAI FOUNDATION,CHANDIGARH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2668/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmavaidya Mangat Rai The Commissioner Of Foundation Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Friends Colony Chandigarh Gali No.2, Hansi Road Bhiwani. Pan-Aadtv 6078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Sapna Bhattia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2024

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80(5)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market Vaidya Mangat Rai Foundation vs. CIT (E) price has shot

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1576/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld. TPO’) [in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’)], erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 21,61,52,391 holding that the international transaction pertaining to receipt of intra-group services do not satisfy the arm’s length principle envisaged under the Income

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 493/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhaskar Goswami, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G

price below cost is allowed even though such loss has not been realized actually. At this stage, we need to emphasize once again that the above system of commercial accounting can be superseded or modified by legislative enactment. This is where section comes into play. Under that section, the Central Government is empowered to notify from time to time

BMW INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 478/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 478/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 562/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Bmw India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, Building No. 11, The Oberoi Circle-10(1), Corporate Tower, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb8986G Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 43Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment as INR 6,367,777 amounting to INR 5,685,515. Pertaining to Corporate Tax Matters 7 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in computing the total income of INR 95,78,78,570 (as against INR 94,35,93,680) in the Final assessment order dated 18 January

BMW INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 562/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 478/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 562/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Bmw India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, Building No. 11, The Oberoi Circle-10(1), Corporate Tower, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb8986G Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 43Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment as INR 6,367,777 amounting to INR 5,685,515. Pertaining to Corporate Tax Matters 7 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in computing the total income of INR 95,78,78,570 (as against INR 94,35,93,680) in the Final assessment order dated 18 January

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 158/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2002-03
Section 92C

price.....'\nIn addition, our attention has been drawn to the definition given\nin ‘Words and Phrases, permanent edition, vol. 40,’where\nsubsidy is described as follows :\n‘A subsidy is a grant of funds or property from a government, as\nof the state or municipal corporation to a private person or\ncompany to assist the establishment or support