Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

15 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 92Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai173 Delhi148 Bangalore56 Kolkata46 Ahmedabad40 Pune29 Chennai18 Hyderabad15 Jaipur12 Visakhapatnam5 Chandigarh4 Karnataka4 Indore4 Jodhpur3 Guwahati3 Panaji2 Rajkot2 SC2 Telangana1 Nagpur1 Jabalpur1 Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 80I32 Section 143(3)14 Addition to Income11 Transfer Pricing11 Section 271A8 Section 92C7 Comparables/TP6 Section 94A(4)5 Deduction

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

section 92E of the Act. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) on 25/10/2019 for determining

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

5

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 313/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing Study Report, the taxpayer did not furnish any details with regard to corporate guarantee given and aggregated the guaranteed transaction along with the sale and purchase transactions under TNMM. The taxpayer has not extended any new corporate guarantee to AEs, however, guarantees extended in the earlier years and the outstanding loans as on 31.03.2018 are as under : Name

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 348/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Transfer Pricing Study Report, the taxpayer did not furnish any details with regard to corporate guarantee given and aggregated the guaranteed transaction along with the sale and purchase transactions under TNMM. The taxpayer has not extended any new corporate guarantee to AEs, however, guarantees extended in the earlier years and the outstanding loans as on 31.03.2018 are as under : Name

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Transfer Pricing Study Report, the taxpayer did not furnish any details with regard to corporate guarantee given and aggregated the guaranteed transaction along with the sale and purchase transactions under TNMM. The taxpayer has not extended any new corporate guarantee to AEs, however, guarantees extended in the earlier years and the outstanding loans as on 31.03.2018 are as under : Name

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 312/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Transfer Pricing Study Report, the taxpayer did not furnish any details with regard to corporate guarantee given and aggregated the guaranteed transaction along with the sale and purchase transactions under TNMM. The taxpayer has not extended any new corporate guarantee to AEs, however, guarantees extended in the earlier years and the outstanding loans as on 31.03.2018 are as under : Name

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 604/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 605/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 606/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 603/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

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

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 123/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarvs. Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle Hyderabad. 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan Aabcjh7867C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Yvst Sai, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad Dt.05.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 92CSection 92E

section 92E of the Act. The assessee company reported the following international transactions : 1. Provision of IT Enabled Services Rs.149,47,38,605. 2. Payment for services Rs.1,52,32,990. 3. Reimbursement of expenses paid Rs.14,19,61,310. 4. Trade receivables Rs.17,00,85,605. 5. Payables Rs.47,16,769. 5 6. Purchase of computer software Rs.1

SEAWAY SHIPPING & LOGISTICS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 181/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mithilesh Sai, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.Vijay Bhaskar Reddy

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 92Section 92CSection 92E

92E. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer on 15.11.2016 for determination of arms length price. The TPO, Hyderabad vide order dated 31.10.2017 u/s 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, computed the adjustment for the purpose of arms length price at Rs.9,44,43,459/-. Accordingly, the total adjustments amounting

DEVGEN SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-17(1) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 187/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Transfer Pricing Study Report which was filed with the TPO by letter dated 25.05.2015 (see pages 211, 212, 225 and 240 to 244 of the Factual Paperbook). A perusal of pages 240 to 244 shows that the Appellant had benchmarked the :- 5 -: ITA Nos.187/Hyd/2017 & 2225/Hyd/2017 interest on FCD by comparing the same with debentures issued by Indian companies, details whereof

DEVGEM SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2225/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Transfer Pricing Study Report which was filed with the TPO by letter dated 25.05.2015 (see pages 211, 212, 225 and 240 to 244 of the Factual Paperbook). A perusal of pages 240 to 244 shows that the Appellant had benchmarked the :- 5 -: ITA Nos.187/Hyd/2017 & 2225/Hyd/2017 interest on FCD by comparing the same with debentures issued by Indian companies, details whereof

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. JODAS EXPOIM PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 702/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.702/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/S. Jodas Expoim (P) Ltd Central Circle 3(2) Siddipet, Telangana Hyderabad Pan:Aabcj8653L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7/5/2024 Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aa Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aa Of The Act Even Though The Assessee Failed To File Form 3Ceb As Mandated U/S 92E Of The Act Within The Time Prescribed U/S 139(1) Of The Act? 2) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aa Of The Act Even Though The Assessee Failed To Report

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 115JSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 233ASection 271ASection 92ASection 92CSection 92DSection 92E

92E of the Act within the time prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271AA of the Act even though the assessee failed to report Page 1 of 6 ITA No 702 of 2024 JODAS EXPOIM

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. LABZONE ELECTRONICS CITY PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S ALEXANDRIA LABSPACE ELECTRONICS CITY PRIVATE LIMITED), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1489/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Labzone Electronics Of Income Tax, City Private Limited Circle 16(1), (Formerly Known As M/S. Hyderabad. Alexandria Labspace Electronics City Private Limited), Hyderabad. Pan :Aajca1470G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad. Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai. Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Revenue’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 17.07.2019 In Case No.10331/17-18/Dcit, Cir.1(1)/Cit(A)-4/Hyd/19-20, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Section 94A(4) Addition Of Rs.18,86,00,000/- Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 29.12.2016. The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows :-

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. PrasadFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 143(3)Section 94ASection 94A(4)

pricing regulations would be applicable. (2) The CSDT on 14.12.2016 issued a notification No. 114/2016 vide SO No.4033 (E) (read with Corrigendum Notification No.119/2016 dated 16.12.2016 vide SO No.4082 (E) retrospectively rescinding the earlier notification issued in 2013 and thereby declaring Cyprus as normal tax jurisdiction and not an NJA. In other words CSDT had withdrawn the original notification