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.

1,474 results for “transfer pricing”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,398Mumbai1,474Bangalore750Karnataka471Chennai468Ahmedabad350Kolkata315Jaipur298Hyderabad285Pune216Chandigarh164Indore151Cochin117Rajkot87Surat79Calcutta68Telangana64Lucknow52Nagpur48Cuttack46Raipur32SC28Dehradun27Amritsar26Visakhapatnam25Guwahati23Agra22Jodhpur21Rajasthan10Orissa7Kerala7Ranchi7Varanasi6Patna6Panaji5Allahabad4Jabalpur4Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 143(3)71Section 14A39Transfer Pricing37Disallowance36Deduction24Section 92C22Section 26320Section 143(2)18

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwallaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

natural justice, we are constrained to dismiss them with costs. That is because we are also wasting precious judicial time by hearing such appeals and perusing the record.” 46. Thus, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the contention of the learned Departmental Representative for rejecting / excluding the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing

Showing 1–20 of 1,474 · Page 1 of 74

...
Section 6817
Section 14717
Natural Justice16

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 990/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

nature of “maintenance and management of data” and therefore cannot be compared with the assessee. As far as IDFC is concerned, we would like to mention that a portfolio manager is a body corporate who pursuant to a contract or arrangement with the client would advises or direct or undertake on behalf of the client–whether as a discretionary portfolio

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3406/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/Shri N.K.Chand &
Section 143(3)

Transfer Pricing adjustment warranted. (iii) The Ld. CIT (A)/TPO/AO ought to have accepted the facts that issuance of corporate guarantees by assessee to lender bank for its AE, does not involve any costs to the assessee, does not have any bearing on profits, income, losses 4 or assets of assessee hence outside the ambit of expression 'international transaction

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

ITA 8754/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

nature, hence no separate adjudication is contemplated. 84. In the result, Revenue‟s appeal for A.Y. 2007–08 is dismissed. ITA no.2055/Mum./2014 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2009–10 85. Grounds no.1 and 2, being inter–connected to other grounds raised in this appeal, hence these grounds are left un–adjudicated. These issues will be decided in succeeding grounds

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2618/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

Justice Easwar (as he then was), as follows: '16. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ('OECD', for short) has laid down "transfer pricing guidelines" for Multi-National Enterprises and Tax Administrations. These guidelines give an introduction to the arm's length price principle and explains article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. This article provides that when

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2876/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

Justice Easwar (as he then was), as follows: '16. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ('OECD', for short) has laid down "transfer pricing guidelines" for Multi-National Enterprises and Tax Administrations. These guidelines give an introduction to the arm's length price principle and explains article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention. This article provides that when

ACCC 30, MUMBAI vs. UNITED SHIPPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

ITA 3036/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transfer pricing adjustment: 1. (a) The Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred, in facts and in law, in rejecting appellants grounds of natural justice

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Shri NishantFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 15Section 153Section 2Section 32Section 92C

natural meaning, external aid for interpretation are unnecessary. In the present case, we are called 20 A.Y. 2009-10 Tata AIG General Insurance upon to adjudicate the period of limitation applicable to TPO under Section 92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section 153. xxxx 26. Further, the general interpretation by resorting to the meaning conveyed under the General Clauses Act cannot

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7523/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

nature, is taken as arm’s length price, and when comparable price based method, or traditional methods- as these are termed, ITA Nos: 7523/Mum/2014, 5827/Mum/2015, and 484/Mum/2017 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 22 of 23 cannot be pressed into service, transactional profit methods, of computing arm’s length price, are pressed into service. Thus, when

PRUDENTIAL PROCESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1274/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1274/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Co No. 102/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2131/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prudential Process Management The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Services India Private Limited, Tax, Range-10(3), बनाम/ Prudential Centre Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Prudential Process Management Tax, Range-10(3), Services India Private Limited, बनाम/ Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Prudential Centre Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Percy J. Pardiwala/ Assessee By Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar/ Shri V. Jenardhanan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.12.2017 & 23.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar/
Section 143(3)Section 50BSection 92C

transfer pricing officer has rejected six of the comparables selected by the assessee and added seven from his own search. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that comparables in this case are already covered in various order's of the ITAT. In this regard, both the parties have given submissions. 29. Upon careful consideration, we note that with regard

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transfer pricing assessment or before the completion of the assessment proceedings. 1.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have erred in violating the principles of natural justice

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, THANE

ITA 2628/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

transfer pricing adjustment. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid additions be deleted. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid additions be deleted. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid additions be deleted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LANXESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

ITA 2788/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

transfer pricing adjustment. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid additions be deleted. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid additions be deleted. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid additions be deleted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BHAVANI GEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -5, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

transfer pricing risk parameters [in respect of international transactions or specified domestic transactions or both] Bhavani Gems Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 16–17 have to be referred to the TPO by the AO, after obtaining the approval of the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) or Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT). The fact that a case has been selected

TPG CAPITAL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3068/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/wFor Respondent: Shri Manish K. Singh

nature of services. Therefore, in no way, it can be comparable to the assessee. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted, due to the aforesaid reason the consistent view of the Tribunal in various cases is in favour of excluding the company as a comparable to an investment advisory service provider. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4294/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and/or new grounds which may be necessary.” 24. We find that ground Nos. one, two and three of the appeal of the assessee

ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2863/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and/or new grounds which may be necessary.” 24. We find that ground Nos. one, two and three of the appeal of the assessee

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4295/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and/or new grounds which may be necessary.” 24. We find that ground Nos. one, two and three of the appeal of the assessee

ACIT CEN CI-43 vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 10/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and/or new grounds which may be necessary.” 24. We find that ground Nos. one, two and three of the appeal of the assessee

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2860/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and/or new grounds which may be necessary.” 24. We find that ground Nos. one, two and three of the appeal of the assessee