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.

31 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi381Mumbai273Bangalore193Ahmedabad41Kolkata31Pune21Raipur17Hyderabad14Chandigarh12Chennai10Cochin10Surat6Indore3Jaipur3Jodhpur2Cuttack2Guwahati2Karnataka2Dehradun1Ranchi1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 115J35Section 143(3)22Section 80I14Deduction14Depreciation13Section 80H12Addition to Income11Section 92C10Section 144C9

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

Section 809
Set Off of Losses9
Section 1158

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2489/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

price for Software Segment 5.1. The Learned AO, TPO and DRP erred in making an adjustment to the ALP of international transactions relating to software development services rendered by the Appellant and in not accepting the ALP of the international transaction as recorded in the books of accounts by the Appellant. 5.2. Without prejudice to the generality of the above

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 612/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

transfer pricing of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The claim of the Ld. AR is that the AMP transaction does not represent the international transaction between the AE’s therefore no question of determining the ALP of AMP transactions. We find force in the argument of the ld. AR in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, in our considered view

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 487/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)

234D of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the Assessing Officer erred in granting short credit of interest under section 244A of the Act. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under sections

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 572/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 143(3)

234D of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the Assessing Officer erred in granting short credit of interest under section 244A of the Act. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under sections

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

Price” of power adopted by the appellant for computation of deduction u/s. 80-IA in respect of power generating unit was in accordance with the provisions of section 80- IA(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in allocating common expenditure

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

Price” of power adopted by the appellant for computation of deduction u/s. 80-IA in respect of power generating unit was in accordance with the provisions of section 80- IA(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in allocating common expenditure

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

Price” of power adopted by the appellant for computation of deduction u/s. 80-IA in respect of power generating unit was in accordance with the provisions of section 80- IA(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in allocating common expenditure

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 402/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA(1) of the Act, for the purpose of determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP). The ld. TPO-1, Kolkata, passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, on 30/01/2013, determining upward adjustment of the total income of the assessee by Rs.9,63,78,285/-. The adjustments were on account of “royalty expenditure

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 393/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA(1) of the Act, for the purpose of determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP). The ld. TPO-1, Kolkata, passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, on 30/01/2013, determining upward adjustment of the total income of the assessee by Rs.9,63,78,285/-. The adjustments were on account of “royalty expenditure

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, II-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 196/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1), Kolkata…..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 I.T.A. No. 295/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1),Kolkata……….Appellant 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….……………………………………………………………….Respondent Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 09Th, 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153(1) & 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Filed A Cross-Appeal, Challenging The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’).

Section 143(3)

transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO. 11. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the adjustment of Rs55,146,673 made by the AO/TPO/ DRP vide impugned order is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case as the same has been made: (i) By applying Transactional Net Margin Method and rejecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price method

DCIT, (IT), CIR-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 196/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1), Kolkata…..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 I.T.A. No. 295/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1),Kolkata……….Appellant 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….……………………………………………………………….Respondent Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 09Th, 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153(1) & 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Filed A Cross-Appeal, Challenging The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’).

Section 143(3)

transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO. 11. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the adjustment of Rs55,146,673 made by the AO/TPO/ DRP vide impugned order is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case as the same has been made: (i) By applying Transactional Net Margin Method and rejecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price method

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The TPO vide order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 24.01.2014 applied CUP method and determined the arm's length price of international transactions of payment of service fees at Nil as against Rs.3,45,55,434/- determined

ORGA SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2152/KOL/2016[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

For Appellant: “1. That the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7 (2)
Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

Price, totally disregarding thereby the volume of business filter of Rs. 1 Crore to Rs.200 Crore. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the AO has erred in charging interest and the Appellant denies its liability for interests amounting to Rs.1,68,851 under section 234C and Rs.2,52,841/- under section 234D of the Income

M/S MATERIALS CHEMICALS AND PERFORMANCE INTERMEDIARIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2348/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

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

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234CSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) of the Act and the order of the TPO was received wherein certain adjustments was proposed. The AO completed the assessment on 19 December 2006 (also considering the adjustment suggested by the TPO) and issued an order under section 143(3)/115JB of the Act assessing the total income under the normal provision

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 344/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)

price per share. However, assessee have now updated and correct data and can produce correct details before the honorable member. 4. For that the Ld. AO erred in assessing Rs. 4,57,06,000/- as unexplained investment without issuing show cause notice. For that under the facts and circumstances, the addition made is liable to be deleted. 5. That

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

For Appellant: Shri C.S Agarwal, Sr. Adv., K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Bikash KumarFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 28Section 44A

234D and 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as per the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessee submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Assessee desires leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before

DCIT/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 215/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

price goes up, in order to earn. It is, therefore, clear that though not the dominant purpose of acquiring the shares is a relevant for the purpose of invoking the provisions under section 14 A of the Act, the shares held as stock in trade stand on a different pedestal in relation to the shares that were acquired with

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 428/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

price goes up, in order to earn. It is, therefore, clear that though not the dominant purpose of acquiring the shares is a relevant for the purpose of invoking the provisions under section 14 A of the Act, the shares held as stock in trade stand on a different pedestal in relation to the shares that were acquired with