Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

24 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 928clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai156 Delhi115 Bangalore45 Ahmedabad36 Kolkata24 Hyderabad22 Pune20 Chennai12 Jaipur10 Cuttack9 Chandigarh8 Visakhapatnam4 Karnataka3 Cochin2 Surat2 Ranchi1 SC1 Orissa1 Telangana1 Indore1

Key Topics

Section 115J16 Addition to Income13 Section 234B12 Section 143(3)11 Section 50C8 Section 2507 Section 92C7 Section 80I6 Deduction6

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2279/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer pricing adjustment is possible. However in view of the amendment as set out above and insertion of the Explanation to Section 928

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]

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Transfer Pricing5

Section 143(1)4

section 928 of the Act; 3. The Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP vide impugned order have erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making an adjustment of Rs236,541,345 by applying Transfer Pricing

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 928 of the Act; 3. The Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP vide impugned order have erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making an adjustment of Rs236,541,345 by applying Transfer Pricing

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 130/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 144C(5)Section 92C

section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the solitary common issue involved therein relates to the Transfer Pricing adjustment. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the manufacture of a wide range of equipments used for Dynamic Weighing, Feeding and Controlling flow of sold materials. The return of income

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

928 of the Act. 1.2. disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to the AEs was for the purpose of furtherance of business by the Appellant, and consequently the guarantee was in the nature of shareholder services and thus a guarantee fee is not warranted. 1.3. making an ad-hoc adjustment of 200 basis points on the outstanding

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

928 of the Act. 1.2. disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to the AEs was for the purpose of furtherance of business by the Appellant, and consequently the guarantee was in the nature of shareholder services and thus a guarantee fee is not warranted. 1.3. making an ad-hoc adjustment of 200 basis points on the outstanding

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’).

transfer pricing order passed on identical lines as in earlier years. DRP completely failed to appreciate that the whole purpose of de novo assessment as already directed by the higher courts in earlier years, would be lost by merely repeating the earlier orders. 4b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, DRP erred in not considering

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’).

transfer pricing order passed on identical lines as in earlier years. DRP completely failed to appreciate that the whole purpose of de novo assessment as already directed by the higher courts in earlier years, would be lost by merely repeating the earlier orders. 4b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, DRP erred in not considering

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF TATA COFFEE LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2636/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 438Section 43BSection 80MSection 928Section 92B

Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO)/ Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. DRP") grossly erred in making an adjustment of INR 2,00,21,945 to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate guarantee fee. 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ Ld. DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part

ITA 745/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 745/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Britannia Industries Ltd...............................……………………………………....Appellant C/O. Pramod Kumar Saraf, Advocate, 238B, A.J.C. Bose Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Aabcb 2066P] Dcit, Circle 7(1) Kolkata…………………………………………………………..............Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjula, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 928Section 92B

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,27,19,4311- was impermissible and be cancelled. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the preceding ground, the TPO as well as the Hon'ble DRP failed to appreciate that the amendment brought in the definition of ‘international transaction

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1281/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 80I

price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market.] (9) Where any amount of profits and gains of an 76[undertaking] or of an enterprise in the case of an assessee is claimed and allowed under this section for any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under

THE TIMKEN COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - II,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 2139/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

928 in AY 2002-03 & a sum of Rs.1,65,07,400/- in AY 2003-04 on the ground that the aforesaid sums paid by Timken India Limited (TIL) a subsidiary of the Asssessee by way of reimbursement of certain expenses incurred out of India which were paid by the Assessee and which were reimbursed by TIL to the Assessee

ADIT(IT)-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE TIMKEN COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 387/KOL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

928 in AY 2002-03 & a sum of Rs.1,65,07,400/- in AY 2003-04 on the ground that the aforesaid sums paid by Timken India Limited (TIL) a subsidiary of the Asssessee by way of reimbursement of certain expenses incurred out of India which were paid by the Assessee and which were reimbursed by TIL to the Assessee

THE TIMKEN COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. THE DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 3(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 1268/KOL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

928 in AY 2002-03 & a sum of Rs.1,65,07,400/- in AY 2003-04 on the ground that the aforesaid sums paid by Timken India Limited (TIL) a subsidiary of the Asssessee by way of reimbursement of certain expenses incurred out of India which were paid by the Assessee and which were reimbursed by TIL to the Assessee

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 152/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

section 928, and accordingly an arm's length charge should be imputed in relation to the same. 3. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in categorizing the corporate guarantee as shareholder service not warranting any charge. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

section 928, and accordingly an arm's length charge should be imputed in relation to the same. 3. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in categorizing the corporate guarantee as shareholder service not warranting any charge. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

section 928, and accordingly an arm's length charge should be imputed in relation to the same. 3. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in categorizing the corporate guarantee as shareholder service not warranting any charge. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1726/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

section 928, and accordingly an arm's length charge should be imputed in relation to the same. 3. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in categorizing the corporate guarantee as shareholder service not warranting any charge. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

ITA 468/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 44A

928+ Rs.48,07,000) - (Rs.2,61,06,063+ Rs.39,96,040)} in place of Rs.3,48,64,832/-. Hence the excess liability comes to Rs.92,56,909/-. But due to inadvertent mistyping such amount was written as Rs.48,69,666/- in the show-cause notice dtd. 06.12.2018. 2.5. The assessee submitted ledger account of inter-proprietorship bank transaction in respect