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.

1,567 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,567Delhi1,537Bangalore519Karnataka309Chennai306Ahmedabad279Hyderabad248Kolkata245Jaipur192Surat182Pune181Chandigarh159Indore155Cochin105Calcutta54Visakhapatnam44Raipur39Rajkot32Cuttack30Guwahati26Lucknow25SC22Telangana21Nagpur17Jodhpur16Rajasthan8Agra6Panaji5Varanasi5Amritsar4Dehradun3Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)88Addition to Income53Disallowance39Section 14A33Transfer Pricing33Section 6823Deduction21Section 144C(5)20Section 92C19

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

section 154 of the Act on 17th November 2011. Thus, on the basis of the margin computed of the comparable companies an adjustment of `239,02,52,498, was made to the arm's length price. 3. As regards ITES segment, during the proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee furnished a fresh list of 15 comparables under Transactional

Showing 1–20 of 1,567 · Page 1 of 79

...
Section 10(38)18
Comparables/TP18
Section 153A16

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

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)

73. This company though was rejected by the assessee in its transfer pricing study report, however, the Transfer Pricing Officer accepted it as a comparable stating that it is functionally similar to the assessee. However, while considering assessee’s objection, learned DRP rejected the company as a comparable since it did not qualify IT service income filter of 75% applied

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 92C 8 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 r.w.r.10B, the arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by adopting any one method thereunder and not by adopting two methods as the most appropriate method. The assessee has also argued for not adopting as most appropriate method, as per which, the price at which finished goods are exported

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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

Transfer Pricing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and interest rate at libor + 300 basis points. Accordingly, with respect to amount of advance of `6,18,679/- was made. Accordingly, the order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 30th October, 2009. Consequently, a draft assessment order was passed on 25th November

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)

73,075, which was treated as adjustment to the arm's length price of interest on the deemed loan to the AE. While confirming the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer added back the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee. Against the addition so made, the assessee raised objection before learned DRP. 5. After considering the submissions

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)

73,93,000/- was not in the nature of ‘speculation’ as envisaged under section 43(5) of the Act. Accordingly to him, provisions of section 43(5) of the Act are attracted only to transactions which, inter-alia, involve a contract for purchase and sale of commodity, including stocks and shares, which are periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013 . Further ₹11,73

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7523/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013 . Further ₹11,73

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1994/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013 . Further ₹11,73

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

Transfer Pricing Officer without proper FAR analysis, without applying any most appropriate method and without considering any comparable is not justified. In support of his submissions, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:– i) CIT v Lever India Exports Ltd ITA No 1306 of 2014, order dated 23.01.2017 (Bom); ii) CIT V Merck