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.

4 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 92Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi568Mumbai464Bangalore212Hyderabad117Kolkata113Ahmedabad91Pune64Chennai57Visakhapatnam21Chandigarh14Karnataka11Jaipur10Indore10Amritsar7Surat7Cochin5Guwahati4Nagpur3Panaji2Cuttack2Allahabad1Jabalpur1Calcutta1Ranchi1SC1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 92B5Section 80I4Section 92C4Addition to Income4Section 115J3Section 40A3Transfer Pricing3Exemption3Section 40A(2)(b)2Section 143(2)

GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 232/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

Transfer 24 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia Pricing Officer levied the Corporate Guarantee fees @ 1.22%, 1.69% & 1.27% on the above referred three loans, which has been guaranteed by the assessee. For computing the Corporate Guarantee Fees, ld. TPO selected the comparables from USA, whereas Associated Enterprises are not operating

ACIT, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. M/S. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD., TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

2
Deduction2
Disallowance2
ITA 359/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

Transfer 24 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia Pricing Officer levied the Corporate Guarantee fees @ 1.22%, 1.69% & 1.27% on the above referred three loans, which has been guaranteed by the assessee. For computing the Corporate Guarantee Fees, ld. TPO selected the comparables from USA, whereas Associated Enterprises are not operating

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrimanomohan Das, Jm Greenply Industries Ltd Acit, Circle-1 Madgul Lounge, 5 Th Floor, 23 Aaykar Bhawan, Milan Nagar, Chetiacental Road, Kolkata- Vs. Dibrugarh-786001, Assam 700027, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg7284R Assessee By : Shri Ashok Tulsyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Jha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR
Section 115J

Transfer Pricing Officer and the ld. Assessing Officer. 36. Per contra, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) are also referred to the following decisions of Coordinate Benches determining the arm’s length guarantee fees within the range of 0.3% to 0.5% of the amount:- Blank

M/S. G.D. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI`

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

ITA 425/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

Section 2Section 2ASection 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

price in respect of assessment years commencing on or before 01.04.2016. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the record. The Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s DVC Emta Coal Mines Ltd. (supra) while further relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case