BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

5 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi24Mumbai5Kolkata2Bangalore1Jaipur1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 271G23Section 92C7Section 92D(3)7Penalty5Section 92D4Section 194A4Section 2014Transfer Pricing4Section 194H3Double Taxation/DTAA3Section 2742Permanent Establishment2

THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS AG ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING CIRCLE -4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. J.Amalsadwala,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)
Section 271GSection 273BSection 92DSection 92D(1)Section 92D(3)

transfer pricing assessment proceedings were inaccurate or that there was any insufficient information/explanation preventing the TPO from determining the arm's length price. Further, there is no finding recorded by the TPO that the conduct of the assessee lacks bonafides or there any indifference on the part of the assessee in not producing the records called

VISEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING )-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3729/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gopalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271GSection 273BSection 40Section 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

transfer pricing order dated 28.10.2019 has considered comparable market rate for corporate guarantee commission @1.5% and accordingly has made adjustment to the ALP in respect of Corporate Guarantee by 0.5% as the assessee has already charged guarantee commission @ 1%, amounting to Rs. 1,34,40,410/-. Therefore, contention of the assessee is rejected. Visen Industries Ltd. 5.8 Thus, in view

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2914/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
Section 271GSection 274Section 92CSection 92D(3)

271C and Section 273B of the Act in the case of CIT v.\nThomas Muthoot reported in (2015) 61 taxmann.com 76 (Kerala). The\nassessee pleaded that he was under the bonafide belief that under Section\n194A, they were not liable to deduct tax at source on the interest paid by a\npartner to the firm and thus, pleaded ignorance

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION, INC, MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2) , MUMBAI

ITA 2915/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/w. Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Section 271GSection 274Section 92CSection 92D(3)

271C and Section 273B of the Act in the case of CIT v. Thomas Muthoot reported in (2015) 61 taxmann.com 76 (Kerala). The assessee pleaded that he was under the bonafide belief that under Section 194A, they were not liable to deduct tax at source on the interest paid by a partner to the firm and thus, pleaded ignorance

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

transferred to the ITA. No. 2633/MUM/2024 Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai. stockiest and that the company had to still carry liability in terms of expired goods and quality of goods etc. and therefore the stockiest were working as agents of assessee company, to promote and effect sales on behalf of assessee." (b) "On the facts and circumstances of the case