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.

69 results for “house property”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai217Delhi201Bangalore165Kolkata69Chennai25Ahmedabad19Jaipur16Hyderabad12Surat6Pune5Karnataka3Indore3SC2Kerala1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)59Section 92C55Transfer Pricing48Addition to Income28Section 14A24Section 115J22Disallowance22Comparables/TP21Section 144C20

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 77/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37Section 92C

property or services transferred in a comparable uncontrolled transaction in comparable circumstances. " 11.1 We also find support from the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of DCIT vs. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals (P.) Ltd reported in [2013] 31 taxmann.com 388 (Mumbai - Trib.), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal interalia held that : "various benches of the Tribunal including Asstt

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

Section 144C(5)18
Section 144C(13)14
Section 80I14

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 181/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)(II)Section 43BSection 80HSection 92C

TP report which was based on TNMM method. In my opinion the TPO was not justified in rejecting TNMM method for the reasons set out in his order because in the immediately preceding year also, assessee had adopted the same method; justifying its international transactions with AEs by following TNMM. 8. Now coming to the merits of the adjustments carried

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. D I C INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1432/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)(II)Section 43BSection 80HSection 92C

TP report which was based on TNMM method. In my opinion the TPO was not justified in rejecting TNMM method for the reasons set out in his order because in the immediately preceding year also, assessee had adopted the same method; justifying its international transactions with AEs by following TNMM. 8. Now coming to the merits of the adjustments carried

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 911/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sika India Pvt. Ltd………………………….……........................................................……………….…......Appellant Commercial Complex-Ii 620, Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata – 700 034 [Pan : Aaecs 1119 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Kolkata……..................……….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)

house and also the rent of Rs. 2,100 per month. There were no provisions for the adjustment of the o the rent of Rs. 2,100 per month. There were no provisions for the adjustment of the o the rent of Rs. 2,100 per month. There were no provisions for the adjustment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 1591/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1591/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-2006) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Vs. Development Consultants Tax, Cir-11, Kolkata, Ltd.,24B, Development House, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 8900 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 92A

House, Park Street, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700016 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACD 8900 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Kamal Sawhney, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 31/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date

STAR PAPER MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 424/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Star Paper Mills Ltd. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Duncan House Vs 31, N.S. Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecs0759B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/06/2022, Passed U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Which Is Arising Out Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dt. 29/04/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ao/Tpo In Complete Disregard Of The Binding Precedent In Assessee'S Own Case For 2

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92B

House Vs 31, N.S. Road Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AAECS0759B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCA Revenue by : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The present appeal is directed

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2489/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

Method as the MAM for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in respect of this transaction. In this regard, the ld TPO observed as under:- (a) The application of the arm’s length principle would be to see whether the charges paid by the taxpayer for intra group services reflect the same charges for the services that would have

STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 127/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80ISection 92B

property, good or service has been acquired under a comparable uncontrolled transaction under similar market conditions. The application of CUP Method requires strict product comparability which has been transacted under similar conditions. This method can be applied where AEs buy or sell similar goods or services in comparable transactions with unrelated enterprises or when unrelated enterprises buy or sell similar

N L C NALCO INDIA LTD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1256/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

property 4. Particulars in respect of providing services 15,174,980.00 TNMM 5. Interest on loan received 1,603,119.00 Comparable Uncontrolled price (‘CUP’) Method 6. Reimbursement of expenses 6,893,894.00 TNMM The TPO observed in his order that in response to the notice u/s 92CA (2) of the Act, the assessee attended his office and filed details which

NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 529/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

property 4. Particulars in respect of providing services 15,174,980.00 TNMM 5. Interest on loan received 1,603,119.00 Comparable Uncontrolled price (‘CUP’) Method 6. Reimbursement of expenses 6,893,894.00 TNMM The TPO observed in his order that in response to the notice u/s 92CA (2) of the Act, the assessee attended his office and filed details which

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 402/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

property (Knowhow etc.), duration and degree of protection, segment of industry and anticipated benefits are same or similar and the economic environment and geographical area of the licensor and licensee in case of comparable is also same or similar; 3. Whether on the basis of facts and in law, Ld. DRP, Kolkata have erred in holding that the determination

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 393/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

property (Knowhow etc.), duration and degree of protection, segment of industry and anticipated benefits are same or similar and the economic environment and geographical area of the licensor and licensee in case of comparable is also same or similar; 3. Whether on the basis of facts and in law, Ld. DRP, Kolkata have erred in holding that the determination

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 206/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: ShriSoumen Adak, FCA, Shri Aashish Podder, ACA &Shri Prashant
Section 143(3)Section 92C

property, right and to supply the product in any and all new developments, improvements and upgrading of the systems. M/s Vesuvius India Ltd. ITA Nos.1333&1289/Kol/2017 ITA Nos.206 & 207/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 13. The Refractory Licensor and Systems Licensor have been providing the following services to the assessee on a continuous basis: (a). Refractory Licensor

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1333/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: ShriSoumen Adak, FCA, Shri Aashish Podder, ACA &Shri Prashant
Section 143(3)Section 92C

property, right and to supply the product in any and all new developments, improvements and upgrading of the systems. M/s Vesuvius India Ltd. ITA Nos.1333&1289/Kol/2017 ITA Nos.206 & 207/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 13. The Refractory Licensor and Systems Licensor have been providing the following services to the assessee on a continuous basis: (a). Refractory Licensor

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 207/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: ShriSoumen Adak, FCA, Shri Aashish Podder, ACA &Shri Prashant
Section 143(3)Section 92C

property, right and to supply the product in any and all new developments, improvements and upgrading of the systems. M/s Vesuvius India Ltd. ITA Nos.1333&1289/Kol/2017 ITA Nos.206 & 207/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 13. The Refractory Licensor and Systems Licensor have been providing the following services to the assessee on a continuous basis: (a). Refractory Licensor

VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1289/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: ShriSoumen Adak, FCA, Shri Aashish Podder, ACA &Shri Prashant
Section 143(3)Section 92C

property, right and to supply the product in any and all new developments, improvements and upgrading of the systems. M/s Vesuvius India Ltd. ITA Nos.1333&1289/Kol/2017 ITA Nos.206 & 207/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 13. The Refractory Licensor and Systems Licensor have been providing the following services to the assessee on a continuous basis: (a). Refractory Licensor

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

method of allocating the costs to the assessee under MSSA and then added a margin of 10% on the costs while making a charge. The margin of 10% is determined based on benchmarking study of pan Asia comparables. The selection of comparable was inappropriate based on the functional profile and specific economic and market conditions prevailing in the Indian market

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

method of allocating the costs to the assessee under MSSA and then added a margin of 10% on the costs while making a charge. The margin of 10% is determined based on benchmarking study of pan Asia comparables. The selection of comparable was inappropriate based on the functional profile and specific economic and market conditions prevailing in the Indian market

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 612/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

Method as the MAM for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in respect of this transaction. In this regard, the ld TPO observed as under:- (a) The application of the arm’s length principle would be to see whether the charges paid by the taxpayer for intra group services reflect the same charges for the services that would have

M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 531/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Singh & Shri Manoneet Dalal (AR)For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred