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.

24 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 801Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi37Mumbai24Chandigarh9Rajkot8Ahmedabad5Chennai5Hyderabad4Kolkata1Jaipur1

Key Topics

Section 80I30Section 14A24Deduction23Section 92C22Addition to Income19Section 801C16Section 115J16Section 3515Transfer Pricing14Disallowance

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 143(3)11
Section 801B10

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

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 analysis and the OECD Guidelines which advocates aggregation of transactions under certain circumstances. 1.2 The CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made by the AO by way of adjustment on account of interest in respect of interest free advances made by the appellant to its 100% subsidiaries by estimating notional interest at 8.25% without considering the submissions made

MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for A

ITA 5092/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: ShriAshok Bansal
Section 35Section 801CSection 80I

801C by inter unit transfer of material at lower prices. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings in a case which 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings in a case which has been highly litigated.” has been highly litigated.” 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company

DCIT , CC- 2(4), MUMBAI vs. MACELODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for A

ITA 5168/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: ShriAshok Bansal
Section 35Section 801CSection 80I

801C by inter unit transfer of material at lower prices. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings in a case which 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings in a case which has been highly litigated.” has been highly litigated.” 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee company

GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1579/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR
Section 1Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 801CSection 80ISection 921

TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES 1. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the M/s Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai. action of the Assessing Officer in computing the deduction under Section 801C

GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 1899/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani/ F.HFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumar (DR)
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 37Section 801CSection 92B

801C of the Act claimed by the eligible units of the Appellant, by excluding transport subsidy, transport recoveries, claims received, miscellaneous income, sundry balances written back and net gain on exchange difference forming part of the 'Other Income of such eligible units and in reducing the deduction claimed accordingly. 2) The learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the action

ANCHOR ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CEN.CIR.41, MUMBAI

In the result of appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6930/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

transfer pricing principles. 5. Benefit Test On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP / AO / TPO erred in not appreciating the benefits received/ receivable by the Appellant on account of usage of brand name/ trademarks owned by its AE, MEW. Incorrect application of CUP method for benchmarking 6. purposes On the facts

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

section 37(1) of the Act. It is trite that assessment proceedings before taxing authority are to assess correct tax liability. However, in the present case, the AO as well as learned DRP did not entertain the claim of the assessee in view of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), without going into the merits

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated 09.01.2015 computing a TP Adjustment towards performance guarantee at Rs. 5,26,17,801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated 09.01.2015 computing a TP Adjustment towards performance guarantee at Rs. 5,26,17,801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1956/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri. H.P. Mahajan and Shri Prasad BaptiFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144C

Transfer Pricing Officer's order u/s 92CA on account of the determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) on international transactions with an Associated Enterprise rejecting the contention of the Appellant that the same was not warranted on facts and in law. The order passed by the learned TPO u/s 92CA 5 M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited is contrary

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the\nArms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having\nwith its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of\nthe Act dated 29.01.2016 computing a TP Adjustment towards financial and\nperformance guarantee totalling to Rs. 10,00,84,210/-. The AO passed an\nassessment order under section