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.

103 results for “transfer pricing”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai938Delhi508Kolkata190Bangalore188Ahmedabad149Chennai135Hyderabad103Chandigarh96Cochin80Pune63Jaipur45Raipur31Indore25Lucknow22Calcutta17Surat15SC13Agra9Karnataka9Visakhapatnam8Cuttack7Telangana5Varanasi5Rajkot4Guwahati3Jodhpur2Panaji2Rajasthan2Orissa1Ranchi1Nagpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1Amritsar1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 14A50Section 143(3)49Section 139(1)39Search & Seizure38Section 153C37Section 6937Section 13237Section 92C

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

dividend during the year of assessment in question it must be taken that it had resiled from the position which it had wrongly taken while filing the return. Quit apart from it, it is incumbent on the Income-tax Department to find out whether a particular income was assessable in the particular year or not. Merely because the assessee wrongly

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

24
Section 10(1)24
Exemption21
Disallowance18
ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

dividend during the year of assessment in question it must be taken that it had resiled from the position which it had wrongly taken while filing the return. Quit apart from it, it is incumbent on the Income-tax Department to find out whether a particular income was assessable in the particular year or not. Merely because the assessee wrongly

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ground of appeal No

ITA 2233/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Sri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Sri Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92C

dividend income, interest income and profit on sale of investment as well as premium of software contract totalling to Rs.2,30,48,603/- which is as per Schedule-13 "other sources". From the various decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee we find Thirdware Solutions Ltd. has been rejected on the ground that it is functionally dissimilar

FACEBOOK INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2386/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Facebook India Online Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 12Th Floor, Building No.20, Circle – 17(1), Unit 1203 & 1204, Hitech City, Hyderabad. Madhapaur, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcf5150G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandni Shah Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)

Transfer Pricing additions, no other grounds are pressed by the ld.AR. 8 6. We are considering the exclusion / inclusion of the above said comparable companies in the following paragraphs : I. ECLERX SERVICES LIMITED. 7. The ld.AR for the assessee has submitted that Eclerx Services Limited is required to be excluded from the list of comparables as OP/OC of this company

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 227/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

deemed international transaction and the Hon'ble DRP erred in holding this transaction as an international transaction. B. Provision of Information Technology enabled Services ('ITeS') 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. TPO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 228/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

deemed international transaction and the Hon'ble DRP erred in holding this transaction as an international transaction. B. Provision of Information Technology enabled Services ('ITeS') 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. TPO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 200/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271ASection 37(1)Section 43B

deem it appropriate to remand the\nissue back to Ld. TPO, granting liberty to the Ld. TPO to apply the turnover\nfilter uniformly to all the comparables and carryout the necessary verification.\n8.\nAs far as the exclusion of Thirdware from the list of comparable is\nconcerned, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para nos.2.4.5.1

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2255/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

transferred funds in order to avoid interest income, while the subsidiary enjoyed income from interest based on interest free funds received from the parent company. The Ld. TPO/AO/DRP erred in making ALP Adjustment towards Interest on Receivables taking short term deposit rate of SBI on hypothetical and notional basis without there being any material on record 6.1 Erred

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2367/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

transferred funds in order to avoid interest income, while the subsidiary enjoyed income from interest based on interest free funds received from the parent company. The Ld. TPO/AO/DRP erred in making ALP Adjustment towards Interest on Receivables taking short term deposit rate of SBI on hypothetical and notional basis without there being any material on record 6.1 Erred

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2314/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

deem it fit and proper to delete the impugned ALP adjustments.” 2. In the case of Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1420 & 376/Mds/2017, the ITAT, Chennai Bench observed as under: “20.6 In our considered opinion, ALP of management service cannot be said to be Nil in the absence of a valid comparable. Since no effort had been

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

transfer as 01.04.2011. By virtue of order of Hon’ble High Court, assessee receives shares of 11 companies which were merged with the assessee along with the other underlined properties. As per our understanding, there is a distinction between “receive of property being the shares of the amalgamating companies” and “underlying assets and transfer of said assets to the amalgamated

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2303/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing analysis I study prepared by the Appellant, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further

CAP GEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTION LIMITED)-M/S PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, CHANGED NAME TO M/S.IGATE INFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED MERGED WITH IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 446/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.446/Hyd/2015 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Cap Gemini Vs. Income Tax Officer Technology Services Ward 2(1) India Ltd(Formerly Igate Hyderabad Global Solutions Ltd) Hyderabad Pan:Aacca4255G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(2)

Transfer Pricing Officer resulted in selection of 19 companies as comparables and an Arm's Length Margin of 23.87% was arrived at. However, a relief was granted by the DRP to exclude Infosys Technologies Ltd. and L & T Infotech Ltd from the list of final comparables of the TPO. 3. In rejecting the objections of the assessee against the selection

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 208/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. P. Murali Mohana Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, CIT, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Documentation as per section 92C of the Act and Rule 10D of the IT Rules by complying all the provisions of the section. 2.4. Erred in rejecting the TP Documentation maintained by the assessee without assigning any cogent reasons for rejection. 2.5. Erred in not appreciating the fact that TP Documentation is not an exact science and arriving

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 253/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bansal, CA and Shri Rohit Mittal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) and approved by the Ld. CIT(A) are functionally not comparable with the assessee, therefore, they are required to be excluded. In this regard, the Ld. AR had filed a written submission in support of his contention, which is to the following effect : “Exclusion of comparable companies chosen by TPO - Ground no. 9 In this

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1747/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment by considering the loans advanced by the assessee to both of its AEs, including Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA. Be that as it may, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) also impliedly accepted the interest earned by the assessee from Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA, at 6% as at ALP, against which the Department has no grudge

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) therefore. 4.1. Coming to M/s.Tata Elxsi Limited, we note that the tribunal’s foregoing earlier order(s) have directed exclusion of the instant third entity as well whilst holding that this company is engaged in various activities including product design services and trading wherein no segmental information was available. Learned departmental representative fails to pin point

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 485/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri B.G.Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35

Transfer Pricing Grounds: 11.The Learned DRP/AO erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not allowing weighted deduction U/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with Clinical Trials/ Bio-Analytical and Bio-Equivalence studies without appreciating the legal implications of Explanation

THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-
Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

dividend income during the subject year, therefore, no disallowance was called for in its case under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. However, the A.O. did not find favour with the aforesaid explanation of the assessee company, and drawing support from the CBDT Circular No.5/2014 (F.No.225/182/2013-ITA-III), dt.11.02.2014 worked out the disallowance

APPLABS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD (NOW MERGED WITH COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION PVT LTD ),,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 854/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

transfer pricing.” Page 17 of 26 ITA Nos. 1793 & 1805/Hyd/2017 and 854/Hyd/2019 5.1. The Ld. AR also submitted that it can be perused from the aforesaid grounds that the assessee had raised many issues i.e. selection of comparables ( ground no. 7 to 9), erroneous computation of income of margins of comparable companies ( ground no. 10), computation of TP adjustments (ground