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.

151 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 10(6)(viii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,113Mumbai835Bangalore378Karnataka303Ahmedabad160Kolkata151Chandigarh145Chennai127Jaipur117Indore86Cochin82Hyderabad82Pune57Calcutta57Rajkot43Lucknow30Visakhapatnam24Nagpur23SC20Raipur20Guwahati18Cuttack17Surat16Telangana16Jodhpur15Dehradun13Agra12Amritsar8Rajasthan5Kerala5Varanasi4Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)97Section 26358Section 92C50Addition to Income47Section 80I45Deduction35Section 115J34Transfer Pricing27Disallowance27

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1371/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 92C

sections 10A & 10B in computation of arm’s length price. Note: All the above grounds relating to transfer pricing for A.Y. 2008-09 and for A.Y. 2009-10 are similar and identical therefore, we take Revenue`s appeal in ITA No.1372/Kol/2017 for A.Y.2009-10, as the lead case to adjudicate all the transfer pricing issues of the Revenue as well

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1372/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 92C

sections 10A & 10B in computation of arm’s length price. Note: All the above grounds relating to transfer pricing for A.Y. 2008-09 and for A.Y. 2009-10 are similar and identical therefore, we take Revenue`s appeal in ITA No.1372/Kol/2017 for A.Y.2009-10, as the lead case to adjudicate all the transfer pricing issues of the Revenue as well

Showing 1–20 of 151 · Page 1 of 8

...
Section 14724
Section 201(1)24
Section 25021

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

ITA 2652/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 263

Transfer Pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 30.10.2018 13. Notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO on 26.11.2018 14. Order passed u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

ITA 112/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 263

Transfer Pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 30.10.2018 13. Notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO on 26.11.2018 14. Order passed u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time

ORGANON (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1335/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 195Section 40

6 to 8 of the assessee’s appeal. 15. The common issue raised in Grounds No. 9 to 13 relates to the addition of Rs.1,54,04,816/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment. 16. During the year under consideration, the assessee-company had entered into certain international

LANDIS + GYR LIMITED,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 37/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 43B

10 Landis + Gyr Limited, AY 2007-08 benefit of decision of the apex court supra was not available during the pendency of proceedings before the ld AO and ld CITA. The facts relating to the same are already on record and does not require any investigation. Accordingly we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee with regard

M/S LANDIS+GYR LIMITED,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 43B

10 Landis + Gyr Limited, AY 2007-08 benefit of decision of the apex court supra was not available during the pendency of proceedings before the ld AO and ld CITA. The facts relating to the same are already on record and does not require any investigation. Accordingly we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee with regard

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3183/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

VIII, Mumbai dated 01.03.2006, while the third appeal being ITA No.164/MUM/2011 filed by the Revenue involves the consequential issue relating to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.6,06,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 2723/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

VIII, Mumbai dated 01.03.2006, while the third appeal being ITA No.164/MUM/2011 filed by the Revenue involves the consequential issue relating to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.6,06,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

VIII, Mumbai dated 01.03.2006, while the third appeal being ITA No.164/MUM/2011 filed by the Revenue involves the consequential issue relating to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.6,06,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2564/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: ShriNageshwar Rao, Advocate & Amit Sharma, ACAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

6. As the assessee entered into two separate contracts, the consideration to be paid along with the detailed duties and responsibilities with regard to each set of activities were defined separately on the basis of these contracts. For execution of the contract pertaining to onshore supplies and services (i.e. local supply, design and engineering, construction, fabrication, erection, installation, testing

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2563/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: ShriNageshwar Rao, Advocate & Amit Sharma, ACAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

6. As the assessee entered into two separate contracts, the consideration to be paid along with the detailed duties and responsibilities with regard to each set of activities were defined separately on the basis of these contracts. For execution of the contract pertaining to onshore supplies and services (i.e. local supply, design and engineering, construction, fabrication, erection, installation, testing

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 144C(13)

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,70,31,878 to the international transaction of the Appellant with its pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,70,31,878 to the international transaction of the Appellant with its pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,70,31,878 to the international transaction of the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise (‘AE') without considering the facts

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

viii. The assessee has then referred to HMRC INTM 542012, 542040, 542090, and 542100 and suggested that these also support the contentions made by it. C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. ix. The assessee has also referred to paragraph 1.65 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2010) and suggested that

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

viii. The assessee has then referred to HMRC INTM 542012, 542040, 542090, and 542100 and suggested that these also support the contentions made by it. C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. ix. The assessee has also referred to paragraph 1.65 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2010) and suggested that

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

viii. The assessee has then referred to HMRC INTM 542012, 542040, 542090, and 542100 and suggested that these also support the contentions made by it. C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. ix. The assessee has also referred to paragraph 1.65 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2010) and suggested that

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1501/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, FCA and Shri SaibalFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukuga Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 14A amounting to Rs.15,52,365/-. 8. That the department craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal.” 5. Facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee is a multi-specialty hospital providing latest generation diagnostic and treatment facilities. It is jointly promoted

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1639/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, FCA and Shri SaibalFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukuga Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 14A amounting to Rs.15,52,365/-. 8. That the department craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal.” 5. Facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee is a multi-specialty hospital providing latest generation diagnostic and treatment facilities. It is jointly promoted

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1894/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

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

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. 6. Disregard of Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the rules") The Learned AO, DRP and the TPO erred in law and on facts in not considering the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of the comparable companies, having regard to the provisions of Rule

PHILIPS ELECTRONIS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 857/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

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

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. 6. Disregard of Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the rules") The Learned AO, DRP and the TPO erred in law and on facts in not considering the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of the comparable companies, having regard to the provisions of Rule