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.

90 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 109clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi572Mumbai428Karnataka309Bangalore190Ahmedabad142Chennai97Hyderabad91Kolkata90Jaipur87Cochin76Indore62Pune59Calcutta51Chandigarh47Lucknow20Raipur20Surat20Visakhapatnam19SC12Nagpur11Cuttack11Rajkot9Telangana8Amritsar5Agra4Varanasi4Jodhpur3Rajasthan3Allahabad2Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Addition to Income49Section 14A44Disallowance42Section 92C32Transfer Pricing27Section 115J21Section 92B19Section 26318

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

Section 92F(ii) of the Act and Rule 10B(l)(e) which deals with arm's length price & transaction net margin method. On a perusal of the same, it is very clear that net margin method refers to only net profit margin realized by an enterprise from an international transaction or a cluster of such transaction and not operating margin

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

Section 92F(ii) of the Act and Rule 10B(l)(e) which deals with arm's length price & transaction net margin method. On a perusal of the same, it is very clear that net margin method refers to only net profit margin realized by an enterprise from an international transaction or a cluster of such transaction and not operating margin

Showing 1–20 of 90 · Page 1 of 5

Section 6817
Deduction17
Comparables/TP13

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

price charged for otherwise comparable products in the same market. Furthermore, a taxpayer seeking to enter a new market or expand (or defend) its market share might temporarily incur higher costs (e.g. due to start-up costs or increased marketing efforts) and hence achieve lower profit levels than other taxpayers operating in the same market”. Further, para

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

Section 92C(2). The Ld. TPO also acknowledged that TNMM should be the most appropriate method and OP/Sales as the most appropriate PLI. However, the Ld. TPO preferred to consider the combined 'Manufacturing Segment' of the assessee (‘Manufacturing Domestic’ segment and ‘Manufacturing Export’ segment) to determine the PLI as per certified segmental financials (enclosed in Page 306 of the paper

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

Section 92C(2). The Ld. TPO also acknowledged that TNMM should be the most appropriate method and OP/Sales as the most appropriate PLI. However, the Ld. TPO preferred to consider the combined 'Manufacturing Segment' of the assessee (‘Manufacturing Domestic’ segment and ‘Manufacturing Export’ segment) to determine the PLI as per certified segmental financials (enclosed in Page 306 of the paper

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

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

ITA 69/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha & Ms. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Laws and violate the provision of sub-section (3) of section 92CA of the Act read with sub- section (3)of section 92C of the Act. For that we rely of the decision of the Coordinate Bench Kolkata Tribunal in the matter of NLC Nalco (India) Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 57 (Kol. - Trib.). ln the aforesaid

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

transfer pricing principles and that the assessee had not undertaken the transaction to avoid taxes. To conclude, as per Section 92C(3): Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income, the Assessing Officer is, on the basis of material or information of document ill his possession, of the opinion that- (a) the price charged or paid

KRITIKA WIRES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-2, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

Transfer Pricing Officer." 23. We find that the assessee's case was selected under CASS inter alia on the parameter that "Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A (2) (b) reported in Audit report and ITR". We note that with reference to this CASS reason the assessee was required to provide its explanation about the alleged mismatch

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1150/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

section 92B(1) of the Act In this regard, we would like to hold that issuance of corporate guarantee by the assessee to its AE would have 'influence on the profits, incomes, losses or assets of enterprise' but not necessarily have 'any impact on the profits, incomes, losses or assets' as admittedly no consideration was received by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1151/KOL/2017[F.Y-2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2019

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

section 92B(1) of the Act In this regard, we would like to hold that issuance of corporate guarantee by the assessee to its AE would have 'influence on the profits, incomes, losses or assets of enterprise' but not necessarily have 'any impact on the profits, incomes, losses or assets' as admittedly no consideration was received by the assessee

M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 224/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 224/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Linde India Limited,..........................Appellant (Formerly Boc India Limited) ‘Oxygen House’, P-43, Taratala Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aaacb2528H] -Vs.- Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Respondent Range-12, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 07, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.11.2015 Passed Under Section 144C(5) Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

109/-) is treated as Transfer Pricing Adjustment”. 9 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Linde India Limited (formerly BOC India Limited) The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the recommendation of ld. TPO and the same is concurred by the District Resolution Panel. 9. While impugning the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a brief

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AT & S PVT. LTD., KARNATAKA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

Transfer Pricing Regulation, various judicial precedents in the USA and OECD guidelines/reports/commentaries. In this connection, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu reported in [1964] 53 ITR 114 wherein the Court interalia held that

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

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

Transfer Pricing Regulation, various judicial precedents in the USA and OECD guidelines/reports/commentaries. In this connection, the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu reported in [1964] 53 ITR 114 wherein the Court interalia held that

WITZENMANN INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIR. -2(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 222/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sm. Pallavi Paul, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 133(6) of the Act and to collate the information on capacity details of comparable companies, such as actual capacity in units, installed capacity, breakup of affixed and variable cost, product wise segmental profitability (if any) and provide the assessee opportunity by sharing the details so obtained on the comparable companies. The Tribunal also held that if there

INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 418/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Years : 2010-11 Indian Explosives Limited Vs D.C.I.T. Circle-11(1), Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Indian Explosives Limited Vs J.C.I.T. Range-11, Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 92CA (2), notice dated 18/9/2013 interalia pointing out the arithmetic discrepancy in the impugned payment of Rs.1 5,64,201/- in Form 3CEB shown as Rs.16,24,110/- in Form 3CD relevant to the royalty agreements dated 27/6/2007 and 02/11/2008 as well as the corresponding price in question. 3.2. The TPO’s order dated 29/01/2014 (pages

INDIAN EXPLOSIVES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE JCIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Years : 2010-11 Indian Explosives Limited Vs D.C.I.T. Circle-11(1), Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Indian Explosives Limited Vs J.C.I.T. Range-11, Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 92CA (2), notice dated 18/9/2013 interalia pointing out the arithmetic discrepancy in the impugned payment of Rs.1 5,64,201/- in Form 3CEB shown as Rs.16,24,110/- in Form 3CD relevant to the royalty agreements dated 27/6/2007 and 02/11/2008 as well as the corresponding price in question. 3.2. The TPO’s order dated 29/01/2014 (pages

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1995/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1188/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1722/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 505/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

109 of 2016 dated 15.02.2017) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (383 ITR 529) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340). 6. We note that the assessee had own funds of Rs. 981.92 and the investments were only to the tune of Rs. 47.88 crores