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.

2,184 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 9clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,184Mumbai2,139Chennai466Hyderabad459Bangalore397Ahmedabad319Kolkata233Jaipur224Chandigarh179Pune164Indore137Cochin123Rajkot99Surat96Visakhapatnam65Nagpur64Raipur47Lucknow40Cuttack37Amritsar30Guwahati27Jodhpur26Dehradun21Agra20Patna9Jabalpur9Varanasi7Panaji7Ranchi4Allahabad4

Key Topics

Addition to Income67Section 143(3)44Section 144C35Section 144C(13)29Section 15327Limitation/Time-bar26Disallowance23Section 92C22Section 80

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/938/2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Ms Suruchi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mayank Nagi &
Section 144CSection 260ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92E

9 of 20 referred to the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2011. By virtue of which sub-section (2A) was inserted in Section 92CA with effect from 01.06.2011. He submitted that upon a plain construction of the newly inserted sub-section (2A), it is apparent that Parliament intended to widen the jurisdiction of the Transfer Pricing

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 2,184 · Page 1 of 110

...
20
Transfer Pricing19
Double Taxation/DTAA17
Section 69A15

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1058/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR
Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer” occurring in Section 92CA of the Act signified that discretion was vested in the Assessing Officer and it would not be mandatory in every single case that he must refer the issue of computation of the Arm’s Length Price to the TPO3. 15 Meneta Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. 6. However, the following expressions employed in Instruction

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed

ITA/1114/2008HC Delhi04 Apr 2013
For Appellant: Ms Suruchii AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Adv. with Ms Husnal Syali
Section 92C(2)

Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm's length price in relation to the international transaction [or specified domestic transaction] in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee.” 9

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

ITA/710/2015HC Delhi11 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 92C

transfer pricing provisions. The meaning assigned to ‘international transaction’ in terms of Clause (iv) of Section 92B was inclusive and not limited to the types of transactions in sub-clauses A to C and E of Clause (i). The bright line test was a way of finding out the cost and value of the international transaction, which was the first

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

ITA/110/2014HC Delhi11 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 92C

transfer pricing provisions. The meaning assigned to ‘international transaction’ in terms of Clause (iv) of Section 92B was inclusive and not limited to the types of transactions in sub-clauses A to C and E of Clause (i). The bright line test was a way of finding out the cost and value of the international transaction, which was the first

M/S TAKATA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6835/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Takata India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 25(1), (Now Joyson Anand Abhishek New Delhi Safety Systems Pvt Ltd.,) Plot No.20, Sector-5, Imt Manesar, Gurugram (Haryana)-122050 Pan/Gir No. Aacct 7200 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Jadhav, CIT (DR)

9. That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (Transfer Pricing Officer) /Ld.DRP have erred in law and in facts and circumstances of the present case by applying inappropriate filters. 10. That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer/Ld.DRP have erred in determining Arm’s length price by reference to comparables without proper justification.. 11. That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

ITA/504/2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Price Water House Cooper, Sweden and, therefore, the A.O. erroneously brought to tax the impugned income of `74,02,47,865/- consisting of business income of `33,99,69,471/- and royalties of `40,02,78,394/-. The CIT(A) partly allowed this ground, and held that while no business profit can be computed in the absence

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1977/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma
Section 132Section 142Section 144C(4)Section 153ASection 80Section 801BSection 80I

section 80 IA (8) on ground that fair market value of goods transferred from silver foil division to eligible undertaking was held than that declared by appellant. Brief facts of issue are that special auditor is reported that during year under consideration silver for unit has transferred goods of INR 9 7796985 to various units including

ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

ITA 913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) by the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the transaction entered by the assessee with Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (“Adobe India”) has always been accepted at Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) by the preceding TPO(s). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AO issued show cause notice

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(l)(vi) to clarity for removal of doubts that transfer of any right in an intellectual property includes transfer of any right for use of a computer software irrespective of the medium through which such right is transferred. The amendment comes into operation with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. In view of this clarificatory amendment it is immaterial that

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(l)(vi) to clarity for removal of doubts that transfer of any right in an intellectual property includes transfer of any right for use of a computer software irrespective of the medium through which such right is transferred. The amendment comes into operation with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. In view of this clarificatory amendment it is immaterial that

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

Transfer Pricing Regulations. 9. The Ld. Counsel highlighted that the alleged AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant do not constitute an international transaction under the provisions of the Act since section

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

Transfer Pricing Regulations. 9. The Ld. Counsel highlighted that the alleged AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant do not constitute an international transaction under the provisions of the Act since section

MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1065/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)

9 to 9.6 relates to the issue on transfer pricing adjustment. The main grievance of the assessee in these grounds is that the Id. DRP/AO/TPO used the erroneous comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) data obtained by issuing the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act but without providing any opportunity to assessee, while determining the arm’s length price

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer" means a Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Board to perform all or any of the functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 92C and 92D in respect of any person or class of persons. 9

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

ITA 523/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 151Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

9(1)(vi) of the Act and under the provisions of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-USA DTAA”). M/s. Snapdeal Private Limited had made foreign remittances towards “Hosting and Bandwidth Charges” and no tax has been withheld on this remittance which clearly falls under the purview of royalty as per the Act as well as India

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

ITA 522/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 151Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

9(1)(vi) of the Act and under the provisions of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-USA DTAA”). M/s. Snapdeal Private Limited had made foreign remittances towards “Hosting and Bandwidth Charges” and no tax has been withheld on this remittance which clearly falls under the purview of royalty as per the Act as well as India

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2299/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

section 9(1) (vii)(b) of the Act. iii) Third, the amount received by the assessee, a resident of Singapore, for onsite services was not liable to tax in India, in terms of the applicable DTAA as such services did not “make available” any technical knowledge, skill or experience or consist of the transfer of any technical plan or design

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (SUCCESSOR TO AXON SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2298/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

section 9(1) (vii)(b) of the Act. iii) Third, the amount received by the assessee, a resident of Singapore, for onsite services was not liable to tax in India, in terms of the applicable DTAA as such services did not “make available” any technical knowledge, skill or experience or consist of the transfer of any technical plan or design