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.

858 results for “disallowance”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai858Delhi850Bangalore704Chennai190Kolkata188Pune167Ahmedabad124Hyderabad91Indore32Jaipur19Karnataka17Visakhapatnam16Chandigarh16Amritsar9Surat9Cochin9Dehradun5Rajkot4Panaji2Cuttack2Guwahati2Ranchi1Raipur1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Transfer Pricing68Addition to Income57Section 143(3)54Disallowance54Section 92C52Section 14A30Section 115J28Comparables/TP26Section 144C(5)18Deduction

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONA FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DILHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

TP valuation adjustment restricting the depreciation, allowance. This has resulted in a double disallowance of INR 13, 60, 00,936. In this regard, we refer the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 19 March 2020 has passed an order in favour of WNS India for AY 2011-12 (ITA No 1955/Mum/2016) and AY 2012-13 (ITA No.2257/Mum/2017) whereby

Showing 1–20 of 858 · Page 1 of 43

...
18
Penalty17
Depreciation15

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6081/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

disallowed the royalty payment to the extent of Rs. 40,51,486/- treating the same as the royalty paid by the assessee in respect of exports sale and other income. We are unable to agree with this strange method followed by the TPO to make a TP

SULZER PUMPS INDIA P. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL./JT/DY/ ASSTT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 810/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 40

TP adjustment under section 37(1) of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in disallowing Rs. 1,63,23,954/- relating to the commission expenditure incurred by the assessee on its export sales. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities

DY.CIT 7(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

ITA 2304/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ketan Ved, AR

disallowance of depreciation on unused plant and machinery of ₹1,73,829/- on unused plant and machinery of -. Further, the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the stment and added further sum of ₹36,86,308/- transfer

INDIA MEDTRONIC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2160/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarit(Tp)A No.2160/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 India Meditronic Pvt. Ltd., Acit 10(1)(1) 1241 Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai Vs. Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R VoraFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

methods prescribed under section 92C to undertake adjustment on secondary basis by considering convention expenses to be in the nature of expenses incurred towards brand building and business promotion; 23. without prejudice to the above, erred in considering convention expenses of Rs 27,11,48,553 as a part of transfer pricing adjustment as well as corporate tax disallowance thereby

M/S. MAHINDRA HOMES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2179/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

TP provisions and secondly while computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act, Short granting of credit of TDS deducted amounting to Rs. 49,10,597/- 34. Erred in short granting of credit of TDS deducted from payments received by the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 49,10,597 Non-granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation

MAHINDRA HOMES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, RANGE-7(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

TP provisions and secondly while computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act, Short granting of credit of TDS deducted amounting to Rs. 49,10,597/- 34. Erred in short granting of credit of TDS deducted from payments received by the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 49,10,597 Non-granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX -14(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

TP adjustment. These grounds are allowed in favour of the assessee Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets – Ground No.11 12. During the year, the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.33,72,60,637/- as per the details given below:- Parties Nature of Intangibles Depreciation for AY 2017- 18 (in Rs.) WCIL Customer Contracts 29,16,57,838 WNS UK – Town

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

TP adjustment. These grounds are allowed in favour of the assessee Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets – Ground No.11 12. During the year, the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.33,72,60,637/- as per the details given below:- Parties Nature of Intangibles Depreciation for AY 2017- 18 (in Rs.) WCIL Customer Contracts 29,16,57,838 WNS UK – Town

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1518/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited be deleted. Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.33 20. In the statement of income, the assessee has claimed income of Rs.4,99,80,342. The assessee computed a suo motu disallowance of Rs.42,29,990/- in the computation and before the DRP revised the disallowance to Rs.3,44,215/- under

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1240/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234C

TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited be deleted. Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.33 20. In the statement of income, the assessee has claimed income of Rs.4,99,80,342. The assessee computed a suo motu disallowance of Rs.42,29,990/- in the computation and before the DRP revised the disallowance to Rs.3,44,215/- under

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

TP)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai | 23.12.2019 | 143(3) | 2016-17 | Revenue 31. | 1891/Mum/2023 | ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) | 31.03.2023 | DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai | 28.12.2019 | 143(3) | 2017-18 | Assessee 32. | 2046/Mum/2023 | ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) | 31.03.2023 | DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai | 28.12.2019 | 143(3) | 2017-18 | Revenue 33. | 1892/Mum/2023 | ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051778

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2046/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

TP)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051778

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2049/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

TP)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051778

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2866/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

TP)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051778

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, DELHI

ITA 1893/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

TP)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA C/S/250/202 2- 23/1051778