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.

1,526 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 81clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,603Mumbai1,526Bangalore592Karnataka307Ahmedabad289Chennai246Hyderabad220Kolkata209Surat191Jaipur190Chandigarh142Indore137Pune132Cochin120Visakhapatnam57Calcutta56Raipur36Cuttack34Lucknow28Rajkot25SC22Amritsar21Jodhpur18Telangana16Nagpur15Guwahati12Dehradun11Agra10Rajasthan4Jabalpur4Panaji3Allahabad2Ranchi2Orissa2Varanasi1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)66Addition to Income61Section 14A50Disallowance47Section 115J40Deduction27Transfer Pricing21Section 145A19Section 153C16

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. Further, he observed, considering that the assessee might be getting some technical inputs to run his manufacturing plant, the assessee would be required to pay 10% of the royalty which was paid during the year. Therefore, he determined the arm's length price of the royalty payment for availing technical knowhow

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

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 1,526 · Page 1 of 77

...
Section 143(2)13
Section 10(38)13
Section 40A(2)12
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)

81,115, was treated as transfer pricing adjustment. Though, the assessee objected to selection of certain comparables before the DRP, but the DRP mostly rejected the contention of the assessee and retained the comparables selected by the TPO. Hereafter, we will deal with each of the comparable objected by the assessee. MOLD–TEK TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED 50. Learned Sr. Counsel

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

81,17,008.\nThe Appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant relief in\nrespect of levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, in\nconsequence to relief granted in respect of the aforesaid grounds\nof appeal.\nGround 6- Levy of interest under section 234D of the Act\n6.1. On the facts and in the circumstances

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)

81. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and learned DRP. 82. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. On a perusal of the annual report placed in the paper book it is noticed that the company has different segments, whereas, the segmental information relating to all the segments

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)

Transfer Pricing (*TP') adjustment in relation to export of finished goods 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/TPO in determining the Arms' Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction of export of finished goods at Rs. 10,35,77,048 instead

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 43A of the Act do not apply. vi. With respect to the claim of additional depreciation of ₹1,23,37,420/- on account of assets put to use in second half of A.Y. 2007-08, relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT in Ipca Laboratories

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)

section 234B and 234D of the Act. 70. Levy of interest being consequential is not required to be adjudicated at this stage. 71. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. ITA no.1754/Mum./2014 Revenue’s Appeal – A.Y. 2009–10 72. The grounds raised by the Revenue are corresponding to grounds no.1 and 2 of ITA no.990/Mum./2014. In view

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 720/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Nishant Thakkar, RishiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, D.R
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 28Section 43CSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 92C(4)Section 92E

transfer pricing regulations do not apply to the assessee, to the extent of operations carried out through operating qualifying ships, since the assessee is a company registered under the Tonnage Tax Scheme ('TTS') provided under the Act. The facts in the year under consideration are not different from those in assessment years 2007-08 and 2011-12, where the very

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

81,739 vis-à-vis the interest cost for the time lag in receipt of the reimbursement by adopting the PLR rate of the banks to the total income of the assessee. 115. The DRP confirmed the action of Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer. 116. Before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in its order

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1205/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Transfer Pricing Officer accepts that some services have been rendered, however, he has made a general observation that such services do not have any value and has proceeded to determine the arm's length price on a purely on ad–hoc basis. Whereas, the reading of the AAR ruling, referred to above, clearly demonstrate that highly specialized services, in fact

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

Transfer Pricing Officer to delete the addition on account of excessive purchase price as it is already benchmarked once under TNMM/RPM, as under 69. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals), inadvertently dismissed the ground, whereas it was to be allowed following DRP direction. Hence, the based on the above order, adjustment on account of excessive purchase price amounting