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.

1,824 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 9(1)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,083Mumbai1,824Bangalore779Ahmedabad352Karnataka350Kolkata344Chennai330Jaipur252Hyderabad217Chandigarh193Pune188Indore172Cochin100Rajkot82Surat67Calcutta58Nagpur45SC43Cuttack38Telangana38Lucknow33Raipur27Visakhapatnam23Jodhpur20Guwahati19Amritsar17Agra14Dehradun11Ranchi10Varanasi9Kerala5Rajasthan4Allahabad3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Punjab & Haryana2Jabalpur2Orissa2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income60Section 143(3)59Disallowance50Section 115J49Section 14A33Deduction25Transfer Pricing25Section 10A21Section 92C19

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM USA INC.,TEXAS vs. DCIT (IT) 4 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2991/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

section 9(1)(vi) vide Finance Act, 2012 twr.e.f 1-6-1976: "Explanation 5-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the royalty includes and has always included consideration in respect of any right property or information, whether or not- at the port of such right property or information in with the payer, right property formation

Showing 1–20 of 1,824 · Page 1 of 92

...
Double Taxation/DTAA18
Depreciation18
Section 4016

SPE INDIA FILMS HOLDING LLC,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (INTL TAX) -4(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. P.j. Pardiwala/Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) and the same reads as under: - "Explanation 2-For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains") for- (v) The transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

ITA 6604/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 195Section 197Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, no disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(vi) of the Act, can be made in the present facts. (g) In the above view, as it is a self evident position from the reading Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, no substantial question of law. Thus, question (a) not entertained

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

SHELL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL BV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1203/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Samuel Darse, DR
Section 143(3)Section 90

vi) to do in relation to an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) (d) In the case of cinematograph film, - (i) to make a copy of the film, including a photograph of any image forming part thereof; (ii) to sell or give on hire, or offer

SHELL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL BV,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Samuel Darse, DR
Section 143(3)Section 90

vi) to do in relation to an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) (d) In the case of cinematograph film, - (i) to make a copy of the film, including a photograph of any image forming part thereof; (ii) to sell or give on hire, or offer

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 1023/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234D

transfers of capital assets/property situate in India. To do so, would amount to changing the content and ambit of Section 9(1)(i).” 87. In the present case also, Linde has contended that it being nonresident is not liable to pay tax in India and the sweep of Section 9(1) of the Act cannot be extended to income whch

GALATEA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5434/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Daym/S. Galatea Ltd. Dcit (International Taxation) P.O. 1156, Industrial Vs. Range 2(3)(2) Area, Dalton, Israel Mumbai Pan - Aadcg8396D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bomi Daruwala &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

section 9(1)(vi). 34. We have gone through the provisions of Article–12 of India Israel tax treaty which defines the term “Royalty”. Article 12(3) has revised this term “Royalty” as under:– “(3). The term “Royalty” as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right

GALATEA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT IT RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal may be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 749/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Bomi Daruwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi). 34. We have gone through the provisions of Article–12 of India Israel tax treaty which defines the term “Royalty”. Article 12(3) has revised this term “Royalty” as under:– “(3). The term “Royalty” as used in this Article means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5713/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 10ASection 115JSection 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

9(1)(vi) of the Act for the definition of royalty also has to be examined keeping in view the ratio laid down in NGC Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In case, the payment made by the assessee does not fit into the definition of royalty as provided under the relevant tax treaty, the assessee certainly would get the benefit

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August

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

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 ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 ITA No. 2508/Del/2007 dated 5th August