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.

339 results for “disallowance”+ Transfer Pricingclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,644Delhi2,928Bangalore1,296Chennai896Kolkata736Ahmedabad406Hyderabad339Pune244Jaipur226Chandigarh150Indore146Surat105Cochin95Rajkot86Karnataka77Lucknow62Visakhapatnam58Raipur51Calcutta42Nagpur37Cuttack35Agra27Guwahati25Amritsar24SC21Jodhpur21Telangana19Dehradun14Kerala10Jabalpur9Panaji8Allahabad6Varanasi6Ranchi4Patna3Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)91Addition to Income72Disallowance44Deduction41Section 143(2)40Section 6840Transfer Pricing38Section 80I31Section 10A27Section 92C

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disallowances made by the TPO out of various payments made to AE. Each ground has sub grounds which are more or less in the form of submissions. 11. Ld.AR submitted that TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 339 · Page 1 of 17

...
25
Section 13219
Section 14819
ITAT Hyderabad
27 Jun 2022
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disallowances made by the TPO out of various payments made to AE. Each ground has sub grounds which are more or less in the form of submissions. 11. Ld.AR submitted that TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2169/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disallowances made by the TPO out of various payments made to AE. Each ground has sub grounds which are more or less in the form of submissions. 11. Ld.AR submitted that TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disallowances made by the TPO out of various payments made to AE. Each ground has sub grounds which are more or less in the form of submissions. 11. Ld.AR submitted that TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disallowances made by the TPO out of various payments made to AE. Each ground has sub grounds which are more or less in the form of submissions. 11. Ld.AR submitted that TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) on 25/10/2019 for determining the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) after obtaining the necessary approvals from the Ld. Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad, dated 18/10/2019. Accordingly, notice U/s. 92CA(2) of the Act was issued on 26/11/2019 and subsequent notice / questionnaire was also issued on 29/12/2020. In response, the assessee filed its submissions on 23/10/2020 and 12/12/2020

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1390/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: CA Abhiroop BhargavFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 92BSection 92C(3)Section 92D

disallowance of deduction under section 80IA, and transfer pricing adjustments. The transfer pricing issue pertains to the arm's length

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,95,55,466 to the international transactions relating to manufacture and sale of Wheelchairs to Associated Enterprises ("AE"). 1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. AO have erred in disallowance

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,95,55,466 to the international transactions relating to manufacture and sale of Wheelchairs to Associated Enterprises ("AE"). 1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. AO have erred in disallowance

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,95,55,466 to the international transactions relating to manufacture and sale of Wheelchairs to Associated Enterprises ("AE"). 1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. AO have erred in disallowance

WATERMARKE RESIDENCY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 740/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri CA Raghunathan KannanFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR and Ms. N. Swapna

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arm's Length Price. The TPO vide order dated 31.10.2017 determined the ALP at Rs.2,73,89,512/- whereas the total interest paid as per Form 3CEB is Rs.16,72,31,168/- and accordingly held that the excess interest of Rs. 13,98,41,656/- should be added back to the total income

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 1590/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri CA Raghunathan KannanFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR and Ms. N. Swapna

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arm's Length Price. The TPO vide order dated 31.10.2017 determined the ALP at Rs.2,73,89,512/- whereas the total interest paid as per Form 3CEB is Rs.16,72,31,168/- and accordingly held that the excess interest of Rs. 13,98,41,656/- should be added back to the total income

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 1591/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri CA Raghunathan KannanFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR and Ms. N. Swapna

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arm's Length Price. The TPO vide order dated 31.10.2017 determined the ALP at Rs.2,73,89,512/- whereas the total interest paid as per Form 3CEB is Rs.16,72,31,168/- and accordingly held that the excess interest of Rs. 13,98,41,656/- should be added back to the total income

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO UBER INDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D MistriFor Respondent: : Ms. M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 144B(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

transfer pricing study report maintained as per Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules and various submissions made by the Appellant:O - Silgate Solutions Limited ('Silgate') - Digicall Global Private Limited ('Digicall") - R Systems International Limited (Seg) ('R Systems') - iSN Global Solutions Private Limited ('ISN') - Airan Limited ('Airan'); - Allsec Technologies Limited ('Allsec'). - Athena BPO Private Limited

BHARATHI CEMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 159/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bharathi Cement Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr3079G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Kalyanasundaram, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri S. Kalyanasundaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80

transfer price. 7) Feeder cost is not factored as that will be incurred by user. 2.1.4. It is seen from the above chart that the calculation of unit rate is based various assumptions and 'energy charge' (Rs 5.25 per unit) is the only direct cost which is charged on the units of power supplied by the southern power distribution company

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 83/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disallowing for the market risk adjustment to eliminate the difference in the risk level of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 3:3 The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO be directed to recalculate the adjustment made by him to the Appellant's total income and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 4:0 Transfer Pricing

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 498/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

disallowing for the market risk adjustment to eliminate the difference in the risk level of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 3:3 The Appellant submits that the learned AO/TPO be directed to recalculate the adjustment made by him to the Appellant's total income and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 4:0 Transfer Pricing

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 181/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra - ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu - DR
Section 143(3)

disallowances made by the TPO out of various payments made to AE. Each ground has sub grounds which are more or less in the form of submissions. 11. Ld.AR submitted that TPO erred in rejecting the transfer pricing

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 436/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B

transfer pricing study report for benchmarking the said international transaction of provision of SDS services: •Inteq Software Pvt Ltd. •Yudiz Solutions Pvt. Ltd •R Systems International Ltd •Sasken Technologies Ltd. •Info Bears Technologies Ltd. 1.5 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in rejecting the following additional comparable companies proposed by the Appellant for 3 HighRadius Technologies Private

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 332/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195(2)Section 40

Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. During the TP proceedings, the TPO noticed that the assessee had reported various international transactions including provision of software development services, receipt of software development services, reimbursement of expenses, and other support services as reported in Form 3CEB filed along with the return