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.

1,354 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 79clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,408Mumbai1,354Bangalore586Karnataka315Chennai303Ahmedabad290Kolkata234Hyderabad204Surat157Jaipur146Pune142Cochin121Indore111Chandigarh107Rajkot53Calcutta53Cuttack41Visakhapatnam38Lucknow30Nagpur21Raipur20SC19Agra19Guwahati16Telangana15Jodhpur14Dehradun11Amritsar10Jabalpur9Ranchi7Panaji7Varanasi6Rajasthan4Patna3Allahabad2Orissa2Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)86Addition to Income80Section 14A61Disallowance53Section 115J44Section 8025Deduction24Section 143(2)22Section 145A19

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)

79,70,71,410; iii) Provisions of investment banking services of ` 33,56,74,029. 6. The Transfer Pricing Officer after analysing the activity of the assessee and the nature of business in the aforesaid three categories was of the view that the functions are basically in the nature of merchant banking service for the Associate Enterprise (A.E). Though

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,354 · Page 1 of 68

...
Transfer Pricing19
Section 26318
Section 69C17

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)

79. Though, in the transfer pricing study report assessee had accepted it as a comparable using multiple year data, however, in course of proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer assessee sought exclusion of the company on account of functional difference and extra ordinary event taking place during the year. Rejecting the claim of the assessee, the Transfer Pricing Officer accepted

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)

79. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and learned DRP. 80. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the annual report of the company 44 J.P. Morgan Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. placed in the paper book, it is not only registered as a portfolio

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1075/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde a/wFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

section 234A, 234B and 234D of the Act. Relief Relief Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before or during the hearing of the learned DRP be deleted. The Appellant prays that the addition made by the learned AO and TPO and upheld by the learned

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

section 92CA(1), for determination of the arm‟s length price of the international transactions and 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 Transfer Pricing 2(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Transfer Pricing Officer’). Based

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

79. Ground no.2(i) to 2(iv) raised by the Revenue relates to transfer pricing adjustment relating to mark–up on reimbursement of expenses at ` 21,99,60,689. 36 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 80. Having heard both the parties and having perused the material on record, we find that related facts and circumstances of the issue raised

M/S. INDIA MEDTRONICS PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

79,78,272/-. The aforesaid adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was added back to the income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. The assessee filed its objections before the DRP that upheld the transfer pricing adjustment. 9. Shri Rajan Vora, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the Transfer Pricing Officer committed a fundamental error in considering

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6142/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljohnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr Opp. Majas Bus Depot ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai 400 060 Pan – Aaacj0866E V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Ltu–1, Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri Rajan R. Vora A/W Shri Pranay Gandhi & Shri Harshvardhan Aggarwal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

section 92CA of the Act to Johnson And Johnson Pvt. Ltd. the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transaction. In course of proceedings before him, the Transfer Pricing Officer after verifying the audit report and other materials on record found that in the relevant previous year, the assessee has entered into

UCB INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 7691/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia a/wFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234A

section 133(6) from these companies which were never confronted to the assessee. He further submitted, the information obtained from the website of the comparables were relied upon by the assessee before the DRP and the data contained therein are contemporaneous. He, therefore, submitted, the objection of the learned Departmental Representative being without any basis is not acceptable

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

79,23,980/- should be allowed as deduction under Section 43B of the Act in the year under consideration since it is the year of payment of stamp duty. 5. without prejudice to the above, the first year for deduction under Section 35DD of the Act should be considered as AY 2011-12 (i.e. year in which scheme was sanctioned

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1150/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

79,23,980/- should be allowed as deduction under Section 43B of the Act in the year under consideration since it is the year of payment of stamp duty. 5. without prejudice to the above, the first year for deduction under Section 35DD of the Act should be considered as AY 2011-12 (i.e. year in which scheme was sanctioned

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)

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

DCIT CIR. 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GUJARAT GLASS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. PIRAMAL GLASS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4777/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer is examining the arm's length price of the marketing fee paid, he cannot club it with the sales transaction since both are separate and distinct transactions. Further, the agreement between the assessee and the AE clearly establish that the payment of marketing fee is not linked to sales. Therefore, in our view

DCIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LAXCESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1697/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Chandni

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1035/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Chandni

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AEGIS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1209/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora/For Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

transfer pricing related disallowances. S.No. Particulars Amount (INR) 1. Disallowance of carry forward and set-off of 49,25,34,311 unabsorbed depreciation allowance 2. Disallowance of interest expense under section 11,380 40(a)(ia) paid to non-banking financial institution 3. Disallowance of interest expenses claimed 5,37,76,428 4. Addition of exchange gain on repayment

AEGIS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7694/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora/For Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

transfer pricing related disallowances. S.No. Particulars Amount (INR) 1. Disallowance of carry forward and set-off of 49,25,34,311 unabsorbed depreciation allowance 2. Disallowance of interest expense under section 11,380 40(a)(ia) paid to non-banking financial institution 3. Disallowance of interest expenses claimed 5,37,76,428 4. Addition of exchange gain on repayment

LINTAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI , DELHI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

ITA 595/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain and SiddheshFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Section 144B of the income tax act for assessment year 2017 – 18. On 3/2/2022. ITA No.398/MUM/2019 & 595/MUM/2022 Lintas India Private Limited.;A.Y. 2014-15,2017-18 033. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: – “General 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case aid in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the learned Assessing Officer

LINTAS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

ITA 398/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain and SiddheshFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Section 144B of the income tax act for assessment year 2017 – 18. On 3/2/2022. ITA No.398/MUM/2019 & 595/MUM/2022 Lintas India Private Limited.;A.Y. 2014-15,2017-18 033. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: – “General 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case aid in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the learned Assessing Officer

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

transfer pricing order is invalid and thus entire assessment is bad in law as provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act are not applicable to the Appellant, Final assessment order passed is time barred 1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section