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.

263 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 100clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,970Delhi1,933Bangalore710Chennai388Karnataka331Ahmedabad284Kolkata263Hyderabad245Jaipur182Chandigarh169Pune148Indore106Cochin78Rajkot62Calcutta54Visakhapatnam47Surat42SC37Cuttack31Raipur31Nagpur28Telangana28Guwahati27Lucknow22Jodhpur17Amritsar16Agra13A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN8Ranchi7Panaji6Jabalpur6Rajasthan5Varanasi5Dehradun4Punjab & Haryana2Allahabad2Orissa2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)81Addition to Income67Section 14A42Section 92C37Transfer Pricing31Disallowance30Section 115J27Section 25025Section 26323

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1549/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: The Special Bench:

transfer pricing provisions per se are not applicable on the facts of this case. Our analysis of the base erosion argument 15. We find that Section 92(1)) requires that “any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price”. To this extent, there is no dispute that the transactions before

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 726/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT DR

Showing 1–20 of 263 · Page 1 of 14

...
Section 56(2)(viia)21
Section 80I19
Depreciation17
For Respondent:
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)Section 92CSection 92E

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, which are premature in nature, hence do not require adjudication. 6. Now we shall take first common issue of these two appeals, which relates to whether the foreign associated enterprises (AE) can be considered as a tested party as per Indian Transfer Pricing Regulation? Almatis Alumina Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 Assessment Years

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2361/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)Section 92CSection 92E

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, which are premature in nature, hence do not require adjudication. 6. Now we shall take first common issue of these two appeals, which relates to whether the foreign associated enterprises (AE) can be considered as a tested party as per Indian Transfer Pricing Regulation? Almatis Alumina Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 Assessment Years

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

100,29,90,268/-,Export of Finished Goods to Associated Enterprise (‘AE’) AT & S India (P) Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making adjustment of INR 90,32,40,004/- to the total income of the appellant in respect

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

ITA 1597/KOL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna SinhaFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(7)Section 40A(9)Section 43BSection 80H

transfer pricing grounds) are dismissed. 25. Now, we shall take other miscellaneous grounds raised by the Revenue. 26.(i).Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting provision for payment of gratuity under section 40A(7) of the Act and addition made on account of contribution to superannuation fund U/s 40A(9) of The Act. (a). Provision for gratuity

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

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, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.2,60,32,000/-. 3. The assessee in the present case

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

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, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.2,60,32,000/-. 3. The assessee in the present case

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

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, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.2,60,32,000/-. 3. The assessee in the present case

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1460/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)

Section 41(1) of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. (supra) assessee’s appeal is allowed. 17. In the result, assessee’s appeal partly allowed for statistical purpose. Now coming Revenue’s appeal ITA 1545/kol/2009. 18. Grounds

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1545/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)

Section 41(1) of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. (supra) assessee’s appeal is allowed. 17. In the result, assessee’s appeal partly allowed for statistical purpose. Now coming Revenue’s appeal ITA 1545/kol/2009. 18. Grounds

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 of the commodity or scrips : Provided that for the purposes of this section,-- (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured

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 of the commodity or scrips : Provided that for the purposes of this section,-- (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured

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 of the commodity or scrips : Provided that for the purposes of this section,-- (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1065/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

100 days 17.329 600,000 98 days 17,720 850,000 80 days 20,493 650,000 21 days 4,114 M/s. Emami Limited ITA Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Total 3,09,402 Arm’s length price of INR value @ (Rs.45/USD x Rs.1,39,23,090/- interest 3,09,402 ) Less: Interest offered Rs.90

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1066/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

100 days 17.329 600,000 98 days 17,720 850,000 80 days 20,493 650,000 21 days 4,114 M/s. Emami Limited ITA Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Total 3,09,402 Arm’s length price of INR value @ (Rs.45/USD x Rs.1,39,23,090/- interest 3,09,402 ) Less: Interest offered Rs.90

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 250

transfer pricing study report paragraph no. 5.1.6 contained in the transfer pricing study report – page no. 197 of the page no. 197 of the paperbook) includes royalty paid by the assessee to EPCOS AG (INR 9371 Thousand) paperbook) includes royalty paid by the assessee to EPCOS AG (INR 9371 Thousand) paperbook) includes royalty paid by the assessee to EPCOS

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

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

ITA 4114/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2003-2004

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.7,42,23,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.3,62,46,000/-. 3. The assessee in the present case is 100

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3412/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2003-2004

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.7,42,23,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.3,62,46,000/-. 3. The assessee in the present case is 100

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 676/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2009-2010

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

Section 50B of also refers to transfer of an undertaking or division by way of sale i.e. ‘slump sale' and prescribes the mode of computing and calculating capital gains on such transactions.” 30. Now let us examine the MOU and the BTA entered into by the assessee and buyer M/s. K. S. Oil and reproduce the important recitals from them

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLA-10(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1672/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 3Section 6Section 8Section 80ASection 80ISection 92C

transfer price has to be taken at the market value of such goods which the Explanation to the said sub section defines to mean the price that such goods would ordinarily fetch in the open market. _ It cannot be disputed that the amount charged by KSEB for supply of the power to the assessee is the price which is ordinarily