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.

287 results for “transfer pricing”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,045Delhi2,921Bangalore1,258Chennai636Kolkata606Ahmedabad509Pune472Karnataka362Jaipur303Hyderabad287Chandigarh178Indore170Cochin150Rajkot90Visakhapatnam87Surat83SC50Calcutta47Lucknow45Nagpur42Raipur41Telangana40Cuttack36Guwahati29Jodhpur28Dehradun23Amritsar20Agra12Panaji10Varanasi10Ranchi8Jabalpur7Kerala4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Allahabad4Orissa4Rajasthan2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)75Addition to Income60Section 26344Section 153C41Section 6840Section 80I37Transfer Pricing37Section 92C32Deduction

NATEMS SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 140/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234Section 234A

transfer Pricing provisions are not applicable to the said transaction. Setoff of losses 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in in computing the assessed income by not-granting set

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 287 · Page 1 of 15

...
30
Comparables/TP27
Disallowance24
Section 144C(5)17
ITAT Hyderabad
27 Jun 2022
AY 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)

set of appeals, namely, ITA 254/Hyd/2017, ITA 182/Hyd/2018 and ITA 66/Hyd/2019. Accordingly, the TPO / AO is directed to apply TNMM as most appropriate method in respect of the international transactions mentioned by the assessee in Form 3CEB and determine the ALP. 20. NON-TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect

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)

set of appeals, namely, ITA 254/Hyd/2017, ITA 182/Hyd/2018 and ITA 66/Hyd/2019. Accordingly, the TPO / AO is directed to apply TNMM as most appropriate method in respect of the international transactions mentioned by the assessee in Form 3CEB and determine the ALP. 20. NON-TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect

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)

set of appeals, namely, ITA 254/Hyd/2017, ITA 182/Hyd/2018 and ITA 66/Hyd/2019. Accordingly, the TPO / AO is directed to apply TNMM as most appropriate method in respect of the international transactions mentioned by the assessee in Form 3CEB and determine the ALP. 20. NON-TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect

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: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 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)

set of appeals, namely, ITA 254/Hyd/2017, ITA 182/Hyd/2018 and ITA 66/Hyd/2019. Accordingly, the TPO / AO is directed to apply TNMM as most appropriate method in respect of the international transactions mentioned by the assessee in Form 3CEB and determine the ALP. 20. NON-TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect

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)

set of appeals, namely, ITA 254/Hyd/2017, ITA 182/Hyd/2018 and ITA 66/Hyd/2019. Accordingly, the TPO / AO is directed to apply TNMM as most appropriate method in respect of the international transactions mentioned by the assessee in Form 3CEB and determine the ALP. 20. NON-TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES. Firstly, we will deal with ground Nos. 5(a) and 5(b): With respect

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

losses during the previous years. · Once it is finalized that that the assessee is an eligible unit and transferred certain goods/services to non-eligible unit or related party, domestic transfer pricing provisions shall be applicable and arm's length price shall be computed for those transactions 19 ITA (TP) 104/Hyd/2022 Sanghi Industries Limited · Further, reduction of price in the case

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

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

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

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

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

COMM VAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Comm Vault Systems Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited Tax, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc 3708 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri J. Siri Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 271(1)(C)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustments do not enure to the benefit or advantage the assessed, thereby reducing the income declared or enhancing the declared loss. Pertinently, the Sub- Section makes reference to the income chargeable to tax or increase in the loss on the basis of the entries in the books of account. The concept of set

LIMAGRAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 464/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 63,22,848 by treating the ALP as Nil in relation to the international transaction involving payment of seed testing and trial charges to its AEs. 9. The Ld.ao/Hon’ble DRP erred in law and on facts in going beyond the scope under section 92CA in questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business

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 for power was I.T.A. No.127/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Star Paper Mills Limited considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation to section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA,the term 'market value' means the price

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: Erroneous Quantitative filters 4.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in conducting the fresh search process on the following grounds. 4.1.1. Have erred in applying the filter Income from manufacturing activity greater than 75 percent to sales. 4.1.2. Have erred in computation of RPT filter by taking

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

loss as operating in nature. 5.1.2 Have erred in considering discount provided as negative income and did not add the same to the cost base while computing the PLI of the Appellant. Ground No.6: Transfer Pricing: Erroneous Qualitative Analysis 6.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in selecting

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

loss as operating in nature. 5.1.2 Have erred in considering discount provided as negative income and did not add the same to the cost base while computing the PLI of the Appellant. Ground No.6: Transfer Pricing: Erroneous Qualitative Analysis 6.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO/AO have erred in selecting

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 issues on comparability cannot constitute a precedent to be blindly followed ad infinitum. Whether a particular company is a comparable or not is an exercise which has to be carried out every year in the case of an Assessee considering the facts of that specific year and not blindly following the precedent which has been laid down

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

transfer pricing analysis / 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. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming

AURONEXT PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 486/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri B.G.ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Transfer Pricing (TP) Grounds: Purchase and Sale Transactions: 1) The Honourable DRP erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in endorsing the rejection of the CUP method by the Learned TPO and adopting the TNMM method resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 19,84,20,000/- 2) i) The Honourable DRP erred in law in upholding

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)

price contracts is recognized using the proportionate completion method, which is determined by relating the actual project cost of work performed to date to the estimated total project cost for each contract. Provision for estimated losses, if any, on incomplete contracts are recorded in the period in which such losses become probable based on the current contract estimates. Revenue from

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)

loss making filter 4. RPT filter 1:3 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in considering the following companies as comparable to the Appellate, despite the same not being comparable to that of the Appellate due to various factors such as functional comparability, research & development activities, presence of intangibles, advertisement and brand expenses, inadequate financial information, use of unreliable segment financials