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.

67 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 112clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi807Mumbai561Karnataka295Bangalore216Ahmedabad132Jaipur112Chennai102Chandigarh102Hyderabad98Cochin70Kolkata67Indore67Calcutta52Pune29Surat28Cuttack26Raipur25SC20Agra18Lucknow18Rajkot14Visakhapatnam11Telangana9Guwahati4Jodhpur3Nagpur3Rajasthan3Amritsar2Allahabad2Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)45Addition to Income43Section 14A29Section 26329Section 92C27Disallowance25Transfer Pricing23Section 6822Deduction19

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

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

Section 115J16
Section 8013
Section 80H12
ITAT Kolkata
26 Sept 2018
AY 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

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

section 92CA(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to same assessee, identical issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First we take Revenue

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

section 92CA(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to same assessee, identical issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First we take Revenue

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

section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  It is stated in paragraph no. 9 that the assessee has not purchased the same raw materials / components / GIT as those purchased by the assessee from the four associated enterprises incorporated in Spain, Brazil, Hungary and Germany respectively (as referred to in clause 8A to Appendix B of Form No. 3CEB

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

transfer pricing analysis to determine ALP, by applying one of the five methods prescribed by law u/s 92C1) and not to determine AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 11 whether the service or benefit has been availed by the assessee. I observe that the Ld. TPO has exceeded his jurisdiction by disallowing the entire management fee/brand

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

transfer pricing analysis to determine ALP, by applying one of the five methods prescribed by law u/s 92C1) and not to determine AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 11 whether the service or benefit has been availed by the assessee. I observe that the Ld. TPO has exceeded his jurisdiction by disallowing the entire management fee/brand

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1960/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT DR
Section 92Section 92C

112 of the annual report M/s Philips India Limited; A.Y. 2020-21 Judicial precedence: Mavenir Systems (P.) Ltd. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 655 (Bangalore - Trib.) [AY 2017- 18] The Hon'ble ITAT has held that the said company cannot be considered as a comparable for benchmarking transaction in the software development segment due to the reasons identical to those raised

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 305/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

transfer of electricity, therefore, would not be covered under sub-section (8) of Section 80IA of the Act. However, in so far as the Tribunal’s reasoning to adopt the market value of the goods at Rs.5.40 ps. Per unit is concerned, we find no error. Undisputedly, GEB supplied the electricity to its consumers at th9e same rate. This, therefore

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

transfer of electricity, therefore, would not be covered under sub-section (8) of Section 80IA of the Act. However, in so far as the Tribunal’s reasoning to adopt the market value of the goods at Rs.5.40 ps. Per unit is concerned, we find no error. Undisputedly, GEB supplied the electricity to its consumers at th9e same rate. This, therefore

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 304/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

transfer of electricity, therefore, would not be covered under sub-section (8) of Section 80IA of the Act. However, in so far as the Tribunal’s reasoning to adopt the market value of the goods at Rs.5.40 ps. Per unit is concerned, we find no error. Undisputedly, GEB supplied the electricity to its consumers at th9e same rate. This, therefore

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1079/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 80Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer adopted ₹4.96/Kwh for benchmarking these domestic transactions with the AEs thereby making an adjustment of ₹44,83,27,538/-. Accordingly, the assessment was framed by the learned ld. AO making this addition. The learned CIT (A) while passing the order, has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1672/KOL/2019

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1082/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 80Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer adopted ₹4.96/Kwh for benchmarking these domestic transactions with the AEs thereby making an adjustment of ₹44,83,27,538/-. Accordingly, the assessment was framed by the learned ld. AO making this addition. The learned CIT (A) while passing the order, has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1672/KOL/2019

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1080/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 80Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer adopted ₹4.96/Kwh for benchmarking these domestic transactions with the AEs thereby making an adjustment of ₹44,83,27,538/-. Accordingly, the assessment was framed by the learned ld. AO making this addition. The learned CIT (A) while passing the order, has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1672/KOL/2019

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1081/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 80Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer adopted ₹4.96/Kwh for benchmarking these domestic transactions with the AEs thereby making an adjustment of ₹44,83,27,538/-. Accordingly, the assessment was framed by the learned ld. AO making this addition. The learned CIT (A) while passing the order, has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1672/KOL/2019

AMRICON AGROVET PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

transfer pricing case for scrutiny on the basis of the value of the international transaction. Consequently, there would be no requirement of referring an international transaction to the TPO for determination of its ALP merely because the value of the international transaction is above a particular limit. In particular, where a case has been selected for scrutiny only

AMRIT FEEDS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 753/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

transfer pricing case for scrutiny on the basis of the value of the international transaction. Consequently, there would be no requirement of referring an international transaction to the TPO for determination of its ALP merely because the value of the international transaction is above a particular limit. In particular, where a case has been selected for scrutiny only

AMRIT HATCHERIES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 754/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

transfer pricing case for scrutiny on the basis of the value of the international transaction. Consequently, there would be no requirement of referring an international transaction to the TPO for determination of its ALP merely because the value of the international transaction is above a particular limit. In particular, where a case has been selected for scrutiny only

AMRICON AGROVET PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 755/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

transfer pricing case for scrutiny on the basis of the value of the international transaction. Consequently, there would be no requirement of referring an international transaction to the TPO for determination of its ALP merely because the value of the international transaction is above a particular limit. In particular, where a case has been selected for scrutiny only