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.

290 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,037Delhi967Bangalore542Karnataka290Ahmedabad204Jaipur177Kolkata171Chennai148Indore103Hyderabad89Chandigarh82Pune68Cochin62Surat59Calcutta51Raipur35Lucknow29Rajkot27Cuttack23Agra22Nagpur20Guwahati19Visakhapatnam19SC12Telangana8Amritsar6Jodhpur5Varanasi5Dehradun5Rajasthan3Allahabad2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income53Section 26025Section 1928Section 133(6)6Section 1946Section 260A5Section 92C(2)5Comparables/TP5Deduction4Section 10A

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/11618/2016HC Karnataka27 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Section 142(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 263Section 92C

price under this section, exercise all or any of the powers specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of section 131 or sub-section (6) of section 133 (or Section 133A). Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “Transfer

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

Showing 1–20 of 290 · Page 1 of 15

...
3
Section 2633
TDS2
ITA/537/2015HC Karnataka25 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

Transfer Pricing/ determination of the ‘Arm’s Length Price’; [II] The Scheme of procedure of assessment and appeals to the Tribunal and High Court/Supreme Court. [III] The scope of interference by High Court under Section 260-A of the Act in these type of cases. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We find it appropriate to quote some portions

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA

ITA/536/2015HC Karnataka25 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

Transfer Pricing/ determination of the ‘Arm’s Length Price’; [II] The Scheme of procedure of assessment and appeals to the Tribunal and High Court/Supreme Court. [III] The scope of interference by High Court under Section 260-A of the Act in these type of cases. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We find it appropriate to quote some portions

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

ITA/100012/2017HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 92ASection 92C

6 only because one of the directors of the assessee company and of GLATIPL is common, Section 93CA is not applicable. The Tribunal also held that in order to constitute a relationship of an AE, the parameters laid down in both subsections (1) and (2) should be fulfilled. As per explanation, amendment carried out in sub-section (2) of section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. CURAM SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL

ITA/20/2014HC Karnataka12 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 133Section 260

transfer pricing officer to provide the information obtained under section 133[6] of the Act in respect of the comparability

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FIRST ADVANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES PVT LTD

ITA/264/2012HC Karnataka10 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 260Section 260ASection 92C(2)

price under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30-04-2010 to the circular 5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard? 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing cross examination in the case of comparables where information was gathered in terms of provisions of section 133(6

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES

ITA/123/2014HC Karnataka12 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 260

133(6) of the Act, which was not in the public domain and could not have been used by the TPO, when the same is contrary to the Annual Report of the company as has been highlighted by the assessee in its submissions. We also find that the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Trilogy

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

WP/13261/2020HC Karnataka16 Mar 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

Section 19Section 482

133 or section 135 or section 135A or section 136, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.] (2) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, without unnecessary delay, be taken to magistrate. (3) Where an officer of customs has arrested any person under sub-section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BROADCOM INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/657/2015HC Karnataka19 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 133(6)Section 260Section 260A

section 133(6)? 6. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the facts that if any filter or criteria applied by the assessee for search of comparables is accepted or any filter or criteria applied by the TPO is relaxed, the entire accept / reject matrix changes resulting in a new comparable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACTIANCE INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/656/2015HC Karnataka19 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 133(6)Section 260Section 260A

133(6)? 7. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the facts that if any filter or criteria applied by the assessee for search of comparables is accepted or any filter or criteria applied by the TPO is relaxed, the entire accept/reject matrix changes resulting in a new comparable set including

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HCL EAI SERVICES LTD.

ITA/343/2013HC Karnataka12 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 133(6)Section 260

Transfer Pricing Officer attracted the enterprise level financials as against the segmental financials with which he started, on the basis of the information gathered under Section 133(6

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SYSTECH INTEGRATORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,

ITA/369/2014HC Karnataka12 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 10BSection 260

133(6) of the Act and to afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make its submissions in the matter, which shall be duly considered before passing orders thereon. It is ordered accordingly. Celestial Biolabs Ltd. 8.5.1 We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record including the judicial decisions cited

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S SUNQUEST

ITA/4/2016HC Karnataka02 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 260A

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.4/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

PR. COMMISSIONER vs. M/S SUNQUEST

ITA/5/2016HC Karnataka02 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 260A

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.5/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

SMT. KAMAKSHI DEVI AVARU vs. THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER

WTA/4/2016HC Karnataka03 Apr 2017

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,H.G.RAMESH

Section 260Section 260A

Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote Date of Judgment 02-07-2018 I.T.A.No.4/2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited. 6/16 from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder:- Regarding substantial question of law Nos.1

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GENESIS MICROCHIP (I) PVT LTD

ITA/181/2012HC Karnataka10 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 260Section 92C(2)

price and the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act, without considering the corrigendum dated 30.04.2010 to the circular No.5/2010 issued by the Board in this regard?” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants – Revenue, Mr.K.V. Aravind submitted that he does not press substantial question Nos.2 to 4 raised in the present appeal

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BROADCOM INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/363/2017HC Karnataka26 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 260

133(6) of the Act 96% of its revenues are from software development services. 12.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables on the ground that it is functionally different, being engaged in software designing and analytic services and Date of Judgment 26-06-2018 I.T.A.No.363/2017 The Pr. Commissioner

PR. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX -IV vs. M/S BROADCOM COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES

ITA/674/2015HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 133(6)Section 260Section 260ASection 92C

133(6)? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in not appreciating the facts that if any filter or criteria applied by the assessee for search of comparables is accepted or any filter or criteria applied by the TPO is relaxed, the entire accept/reject matrix changes resulting in a new comparable set including

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S MERCEDES BENZ

ITA/326/2012HC Karnataka09 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 260Section 92C(2)

Transfer Pricing analysis and with regard to risk adjustment, back to the file of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer when there are no fresh facts brought before the tribunal apart from those which are already discussed in the order of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer? 2) Whether the tribunal is right in law by directing the TPO to consider only those uncontrolled

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI ANIL KABRA

RP/326/2012HC Karnataka22 Jun 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 260Section 92C(2)

Transfer Pricing analysis and with regard to risk adjustment, back to the file of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer when there are no fresh facts brought before the tribunal apart from those which are already discussed in the order of assessing authority/Transfer Pricing Officer? 2) Whether the tribunal is right in law by directing the TPO to consider only those uncontrolled