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.

49 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 247clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai396Delhi374Karnataka243Bangalore114Chennai68Hyderabad67Jaipur60Indore51Kolkata49Ahmedabad34Cochin28Lucknow28Pune26Visakhapatnam22Surat17Calcutta16Nagpur14Rajkot12SC9Varanasi9Chandigarh9Telangana6Raipur4Rajasthan4Jabalpur2Jodhpur2Dehradun2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Agra1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)43Section 6831Addition to Income31Section 14A28Section 26326Disallowance19Section 10(38)18Long Term Capital Gains15Capital Gains

DCIT, KOL. , KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 286/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.286/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit, Kolkata.................................................................................Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd.................................................……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Raman Garg, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating That Arm'S Length Price & Fair Market Value Are Two Different Concepts & The Role Of The Tpo Is Limited To Determination Of Arm'S Length Price

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92F

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 8012
Section 25011
Section 80I10

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non- eligible (manufacturing) units were considered as the ‘tested party

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 802/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92F

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non-eligible (manufacturing) units were considered as the ‘tested party

DCIT CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 801/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92F

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non-eligible (manufacturing) units were considered as the ‘tested party

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

247 days 7,444 575,000 100 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

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

247 days 7,444 575,000 100 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

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

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

price of assessee i.e. inter-unit transfer @ Rs.43,02,187/- per unit. Wc are of the view that the figures picked up by the AO from the orders of UPPCL does not represent the open market value of electricity.” The learned Tribunal also allowed the claim for deduction under Section 80IA following the judgment of this Court in the case

M/S. R. S. SOFTWARE (INDIA) LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 741/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am M/S. R.S. Software (India) Ltd. Vs. Acit/Cir-2(2), Kolkata A-2, Fmc Fortuna, 234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kol-20. Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 7813 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Sriram, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14A

section 14A, other than what the assessee had suo-moto disallowed. (2) Ground No.3 raised by the assessee relates to additions made with respect to unbilled revenue to the tune of Rs. 17,44,27,000/-, which is already included in the revenue/income of the company. 4. We shall first take-up additions challenged on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

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

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation to section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA,the term ‘market value’ means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

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

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation to section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA,the term ‘market value’ means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1037/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

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation to section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA,the term ‘market value’ means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

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

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation to section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA,the term ‘market value’ means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

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

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation to section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA,the term ‘market value’ means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 773/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

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation to section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA,the term ‘market value’ means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WHITE CLIFF PROPERTIES (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1511/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 251

section 48 cannot be the market value of the capital asset on the date of transfer. In such a case, we have to read the said expression in the light of the two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 622 and in the case

M/S HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 330/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50BSection 5O

247 crores, that, the parties did not Intend to make a sale of itemized assets. Mere execution of conveyance of immovable property by itself would not constitute sale of itemized assets. PPL (originally KMCL) never intended to purchase individual items and apart from land, building, plant and machinery, PAL had transferred business advantages like licences, quotas, permission

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 273/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 68

pricing addition of Rs. 78.97 crores; (ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities; (iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of 13 Madhuban Dealers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased

GOUTAM GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 13, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1080/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 263Section 45Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

price (Rs. 33,70,000/-), leading to a difference of Rs. 43,17,802/-. Through the said notice it was proposed to tax this amount u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellant is seen to have advanced a number of reasons to canvass the point that taxability of the amount worked

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANTORA OIL PRODUCTS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40A(2)

transfer pricing provisions were introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013. in the circumstances the said provisions were not applicable to AY 2010-11 in question. 28. Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that even if the assessee was charging lower price form its sister concern, it was not a case where the assessee incurred loss

ANJALI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40A(2)

transfer pricing provisions were introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013. in the circumstances the said provisions were not applicable to AY 2010-11 in question. 28. Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that even if the assessee was charging lower price form its sister concern, it was not a case where the assessee incurred loss