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.

190 results for “transfer pricing”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai938Delhi508Kolkata190Bangalore188Ahmedabad149Chennai135Hyderabad103Chandigarh96Cochin80Pune63Jaipur45Raipur31Indore25Lucknow22Calcutta17Surat15SC13Agra9Karnataka9Visakhapatnam8Cuttack7Telangana5Varanasi5Rajkot4Guwahati3Jodhpur2Panaji2Rajasthan2Orissa1Ranchi1Nagpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1Amritsar1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 14A103Section 143(3)96Addition to Income60Disallowance51Section 115J41Section 25033Section 244A30Transfer Pricing27Section 263

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 214/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

deem it fit and appropriate , in the interest of justice and fairplay, to remand this issue of list of comparables also to the file of the ld TPO for denovo adjudication. The assessee is also given liberty to file fresh list of comparables, if it so desires, and also file fresh objections and evidences in support of its contentions

Showing 1–20 of 190 · Page 1 of 10

...
25
Deduction24
Section 80I15
Section 92C15

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 138/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

deem it sufficient to deal with the major issues raised by the assessee on the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The first issue that requires consideration is as to whether in computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D2(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer while adopting the average value

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

ITA 191/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

deem it sufficient to deal with the major issues raised by the assessee on the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The first issue that requires consideration is as to whether in computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D2(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer while adopting the average value

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

ITA 192/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

deem it sufficient to deal with the major issues raised by the assessee on the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The first issue that requires consideration is as to whether in computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D2(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer while adopting the average value

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 139/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

deem it sufficient to deal with the major issues raised by the assessee on the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The first issue that requires consideration is as to whether in computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D2(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer while adopting the average value

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 16,27,69,727 on the basis that the Appellant should have made operating profit/ total cost margin of 15.36 % with respect to its software development services. 5.3. The Learned AO and DRP erred in selecting some functionally non- comparable companies for determination of arm's length price. 5.4. Even for some of the accepted

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 16,27,69,727 on the basis that the Appellant should have made operating profit/ total cost margin of 15.36 % with respect to its software development services. 5.3. The Learned AO and DRP erred in selecting some functionally non- comparable companies for determination of arm's length price. 5.4. Even for some of the accepted

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1047/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest on loan given to subsidiary) has been discussed and adjudicated in favour of assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the present issue in assessee`s appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, a copy of which was also placed before the Bench. 10. Learned Departmental Representative relied

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1048/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest on loan given to subsidiary) has been discussed and adjudicated in favour of assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the present issue in assessee`s appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, a copy of which was also placed before the Bench. 10. Learned Departmental Representative relied

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1049/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest on loan given to subsidiary) has been discussed and adjudicated in favour of assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the present issue in assessee`s appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, a copy of which was also placed before the Bench. 10. Learned Departmental Representative relied

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

transfer pricing scrutiny. We however note that the relevant provisions of Section 92BA were amended by Finance Act, 2017w.e.f. 01.04.2017 whereby clause (i) of sec. 92BA relating to any expenditure in respect of which payment have been made or is to be made to a person referred to clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section

M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 507/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.506 & 507/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10& 2010-11) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-4, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Paul & Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

deemed to be the arm's length price.” We note that tolerance limit, that is, +/- 5% variation allowed in determining arm`s length price has been capped to a limit of +/- 3% from April 1, 2003, (see proviso to Sec.92C of the Act, as mentioned above) and in the assessee`s case the assessment year 2010-11, is under consideration

M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 506/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.506 & 507/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10& 2010-11) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-4, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Paul & Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

deemed to be the arm's length price.” We note that tolerance limit, that is, +/- 5% variation allowed in determining arm`s length price has been capped to a limit of +/- 3% from April 1, 2003, (see proviso to Sec.92C of the Act, as mentioned above) and in the assessee`s case the assessment year 2010-11, is under consideration

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1274/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.506 & 507/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10& 2010-11) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-4, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Paul & Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

deemed to be the arm's length price.” We note that tolerance limit, that is, +/- 5% variation allowed in determining arm`s length price has been capped to a limit of +/- 3% from April 1, 2003, (see proviso to Sec.92C of the Act, as mentioned above) and in the assessee`s case the assessment year 2010-11, is under consideration

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1275/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.506 & 507/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10& 2010-11) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-4, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Paul & Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

deemed to be the arm's length price.” We note that tolerance limit, that is, +/- 5% variation allowed in determining arm`s length price has been capped to a limit of +/- 3% from April 1, 2003, (see proviso to Sec.92C of the Act, as mentioned above) and in the assessee`s case the assessment year 2010-11, is under consideration

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2143/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this