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.

4,855 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 10(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,156Mumbai4,855Bangalore1,923Chennai1,015Kolkata901Ahmedabad778Pune757Hyderabad715Karnataka557Jaipur451Chandigarh313Surat306Indore274Cochin236Visakhapatnam131Rajkot127SC117Telangana90Cuttack86Nagpur83Calcutta72Lucknow70Raipur70Amritsar52Jodhpur38Guwahati36Agra35Dehradun33A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN16Ranchi15Jabalpur14Panaji13Varanasi12Rajasthan12Allahabad11Kerala9Patna9Orissa7Punjab & Haryana3A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1Andhra Pradesh1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)99Addition to Income55Disallowance38Section 14A30Transfer Pricing27Deduction20Section 92C17Section 10(38)16Double Taxation/DTAA

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1495/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
Section 133(6)Section 92D

10,887/-.\nbeing short-fall.\nGround 2 - Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act\nThe said ground is premature at this stage.\n2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO\nhas erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)\nof the Act.\nThe Appellant prays that

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Shri F.V. Irani, AR

Showing 1–20 of 4,855 · Page 1 of 243

...
16
Section 14715
Section 115J15
Long Term Capital Gains15
For Appellant:
For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2493/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2815/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8120/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3811/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3691/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

10 was that assessee filed return of income on 30/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 278,678,540/–. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny. 084. As assessee has entered into international transactions the learned it assessing officer referred the matter to the additional Commissioner of income tax, transfer pricing officer – I (3), Mumbai (the learned transfer pricing officer

INDIA MEDTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7263/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodindia Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Of Income-Tax-10(1)(1), Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Room No. 209, Vs. Ghatkopar Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra- 400093 Pan – Aaaci4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Rajan R. Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2019

For Appellant: S/shri Rajan R. Vora &For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

10(1)(1) Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 (WZ), (hereinafter referred to as the „Hon‟ble DRP‟) on the following grounds, each of which are without prejudice to one another: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned AO/ Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing) - 2(3) („TPO”)/Hon

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2590/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafnaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

section 37(1) of the Act in the absence of any evidence to suggest transfer of technical knowhow during the year. Having held so, the Transfer Pricing Officer again observed that since the assessee might be getting some technical inputs to run his manufacturing plan, he is required to pay 10

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

10,30,62,643, as against the price charged by the assessee at ` 8,47,34,817. The resultant shortfall of ` 1,83,27,826, was treated as the adjustment made to the arm's length price. 49. Being aggrieved of such adjustment, the assessee raised objections before the DRP. However, the DRP concurred with the view of the Transfer

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 6912/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(2)

Transfer Pricing Officer in Page–37 of his order submitted, assessee also provides high end information technology enabled services, hence, assessee’s objections should not be accepted. 67. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. We have noted that the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after

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)

section 37(1) of the Act in the absence of any evidence to suggest transfer of technical knowhow during the year. Having held so, the Transfer Pricing Officer again observed that since the assessee might be getting some technical inputs to run his manufacturing plan, he is required to pay 10

JSW ENERGY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING) 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1223/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

price”. The second important point of distinction is, and that is material in the present context, that while non-compliance with a notice under section 92D(3) may result in being visited with a penalty under section 271G, no such consequence is visualized, under section 271G, for non-compliance with the notices under section 92CA(2). The third important point

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1671/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalaa/w Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

10 50. Ground no.1, has already been dealt with while deciding grounds no.10 and 15 of assessee’s appeal in ITA no.1671/Mum./2014, in the earlier part of the order. Therefore, separate adjudication is not required. 51. In ground no.2,the Revenue has challenged the decision of learned DRP in directing that the adjustment to be made by the Transfer

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)

10 sought to be pointed out that the Transfer Pricing Officer had called for the stock inventory of all the programmes indicating their cost, unamortized amount on the date of sale, selling price, difference between book value and selling price, etc. which were not furnished. It was pointed out that the Transfer Pricing Officer had concluded that assessee had failed

M/S. MERCATOR LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7278/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Mr.KrishnaKumarMishra.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

1-11-2019 was barred by limitation - Held, yes [Paras 28, 29 and 39] [In favour of assessee] III. Section 92CA, read with section 153, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Transfer pricing - Reference to TPO (sub-section (3A)) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Whether word 'may' used in section 92CA(3A) has to be construed as shall and word