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.

171 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,037Delhi967Bangalore542Karnataka290Ahmedabad204Jaipur177Kolkata171Chennai148Indore103Hyderabad89Chandigarh84Pune68Cochin62Surat59Calcutta51Raipur35Lucknow29Rajkot27Cuttack24Agra22Nagpur20Guwahati19Visakhapatnam19SC12Telangana8Amritsar6Jodhpur5Varanasi5Dehradun5Rajasthan3Allahabad2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70Section 26367Section 143(3)56Section 14844Section 14742Section 115J30Section 6824Disallowance24Deduction23

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

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1864/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely: (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,-- (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number

Showing 1–20 of 171 · Page 1 of 9

...
Section 80I22
Section 92C21
Condonation of Delay21

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1197/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely: (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,-- (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1777/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely: (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,-- (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number

M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1650/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely: (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,-- (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number

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 234C of the Act are very clear without any ambiguity that the same is chargeable only on the returned income. Hence, the Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. Adjustment to Arm’s Length Price – ITA No. 37/Kol/2012 – Asst Year 2007-08 The assessee is a closely held company engaged in the business of manufacturing

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 234C of the Act are very clear without any ambiguity that the same is chargeable only on the returned income. Hence, the Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. Adjustment to Arm’s Length Price – ITA No. 37/Kol/2012 – Asst Year 2007-08 The assessee is a closely held company engaged in the business of manufacturing

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 133(6) and I.T.A. No 2723/MUM/2006 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & I.T.A. No. 164/MUM/2011 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & ITA-3183/MUM/2006 Assessment Year: 2002-2003 Page 5 of 25 provided copies of the same to the assessee. The assessee-company raised a preliminary objection to the selection of the four entities by the TPO as comparables on the ground that

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 133(6) and I.T.A. No 2723/MUM/2006 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & I.T.A. No. 164/MUM/2011 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & ITA-3183/MUM/2006 Assessment Year: 2002-2003 Page 5 of 25 provided copies of the same to the assessee. The assessee-company raised a preliminary objection to the selection of the four entities by the TPO as comparables on the ground that

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 133(6) and I.T.A. No 2723/MUM/2006 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & I.T.A. No. 164/MUM/2011 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & ITA-3183/MUM/2006 Assessment Year: 2002-2003 Page 5 of 25 provided copies of the same to the assessee. The assessee-company raised a preliminary objection to the selection of the four entities by the TPO as comparables on the ground that

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). 6. Explanation 7 basically revolves around two core issues "good faith’ and "due diligence". It has to be seen in objective manner whether the appellant has acted in "good faith' and "due diligence" or not, before the penalty can be levied. Both these additions have to be satisfied cumulatively. 7. The appellant carried out transfer pricing

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). 6. Explanation 7 basically revolves around two core issues "good faith’ and "due diligence". It has to be seen in objective manner whether the appellant has acted in "good faith' and "due diligence" or not, before the penalty can be levied. Both these additions have to be satisfied cumulatively. 7. The appellant carried out transfer pricing

N L C NALCO INDIA LTD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1256/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

6,893,894.00 TNMM The TPO observed in his order that in response to the notice u/s 92CA (2) of the Act, the assessee attended his office and filed details which were placed on record. The TPO held in his order that the pricing of the aforesaid agreement in respect of technical consultation 11 ITA Nos.529/K/2008 & ITA No. 1256/K/2009

NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 529/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

6,893,894.00 TNMM The TPO observed in his order that in response to the notice u/s 92CA (2) of the Act, the assessee attended his office and filed details which were placed on record. The TPO held in his order that the pricing of the aforesaid agreement in respect of technical consultation 11 ITA Nos.529/K/2008 & ITA No. 1256/K/2009

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

Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and tax Administrations issued by OECD: 11. From the above regulations and guidelines, we note that as per section 92C of the Act, ALP is required to be computed using any of the I.T.A. No. 222/Kol/2021 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY 2009-10 21 given six methods and in the manner as is prescribed

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1362/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

6. Before us both the parties fairly agreed that the issue involved in Ground No. 2 is covered by the orders of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier years. Since factual matrix of the case remained unchanged during the relevant year, following the appellate orders for the earlier years, we uphold

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1363/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

6. Before us both the parties fairly agreed that the issue involved in Ground No. 2 is covered by the orders of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier years. Since factual matrix of the case remained unchanged during the relevant year, following the appellate orders for the earlier years, we uphold

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 204/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Amal Kamat, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

section 92 of the Act should be applicable in respect of transactions of rendering services of software development by the assessee to its AEs. The summary of international transactions reported in Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR) is tabulated as under: 11 Normura Research Institute Financial Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 International Method Assessee Comparables Transaction selected (Tested party

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE & FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 485/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 284/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 485/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata -Vs- Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92F

Section 92 of the Act are applicable in respect of the transactions of rendering services of software development services by the assessee to its AE. 5.1. To justify the price received by the assessee as one at Arm’s Length, the assessee filed a transfer pricing analysis in which the assessee adopted Operating Profit to Operating Cost

NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWS AS ANSHIN SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 284/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 284/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 485/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata -Vs- Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92F

Section 92 of the Act are applicable in respect of the transactions of rendering services of software development services by the assessee to its AE. 5.1. To justify the price received by the assessee as one at Arm’s Length, the assessee filed a transfer pricing analysis in which the assessee adopted Operating Profit to Operating Cost

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1051/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2009-2010

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

For Appellant: Shri Mawheet Dalal, Advocate & Shri Gunjan Khanna, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 148Section 40Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Study without considering the functional and risk analysis of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 5. Erroneous computation of adjustment amount by the TPO 5.1. The learned AO, DRP and TPO erred in computing the adjustment amount at 14,776,387 by erroneously including the following: (a) Cost of domestic segment (b) Payment of royalty. 6. Initiation