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.

216 results for “transfer pricing”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,398Mumbai1,474Bangalore750Karnataka471Chennai468Ahmedabad350Kolkata315Jaipur298Hyderabad285Pune216Chandigarh164Indore151Cochin117Rajkot87Surat79Calcutta68Telangana64Lucknow52Nagpur48Cuttack46Raipur32SC28Dehradun27Amritsar26Visakhapatnam25Guwahati23Agra22Jodhpur21Rajasthan10Orissa7Kerala7Ranchi7Varanasi6Patna6Panaji5Allahabad4Jabalpur4Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)77Addition to Income68Section 12A46Section 3536Transfer Pricing32Section 26327Section 1123Comparables/TP23Disallowance23

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand
Section 143(2)Section 92Section 92C

nature of stewardship or shareholder activity. The payment to Schaeffler Holding (China) Co. Ltd. at the actual costs incurred in providing such services plus 5% mark-up is at ALP, which does not require any transfer pricing addition. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order by holding that the international transaction of payment of Fees for Management services at Rs.5

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Showing 1–20 of 216 · Page 1 of 11

...
Section 92C22
Section 115J20
Section 10(20)20

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 495/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: S/Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri J.P., Chandraker
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

natural justice. 24. Ground No. 13 deals with transfer pricing adjustment to be limited to the international transaction with AEs only

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 738/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sangram Gaikwad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

transfer pricing adjustment in the hands of OIE Though he reduced the amount of arm’s length profit of the assessee in Table 28.3, but forgot to add the amount of profit/loss of the assessee in his Table on 28.1 while calculating the Combined profit of the group entities, for further processing under the PSM. M/s. Sava Medica

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 739/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sangram Gaikwad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

transfer pricing adjustment in the hands of OIE Though he reduced the amount of arm’s length profit of the assessee in Table 28.3, but forgot to add the amount of profit/loss of the assessee in his Table on 28.1 while calculating the Combined profit of the group entities, for further processing under the PSM. M/s. Sava Medica

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 740/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sangram Gaikwad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C

transfer pricing adjustment in the hands of OIE Though he reduced the amount of arm’s length profit of the assessee in Table 28.3, but forgot to add the amount of profit/loss of the assessee in his Table on 28.1 while calculating the Combined profit of the group entities, for further processing under the PSM. M/s. Sava Medica

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 473/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kamal ShaneyFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan
Section 10ASection 10A(7)

Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether or not there exists any arrangement which has resulted in more than ordinary profits qua the requirements of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. Even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 446/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kamal ShaneyFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan
Section 10ASection 10A(7)

Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether or not there exists any arrangement which has resulted in more than ordinary profits qua the requirements of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. Even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/PUN/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)

Transfer Pricing Order u/s.92CA(3) ii. Capital expenditure Rs.10,35,850/- iii. Warranty provision Rs.1,01,98,196/- iv. Provision for leave Rs.31,99,327/- Rs.43,20,81,216/- encashment Business Income Rs.36,72,57,361/- Less: Set off Business loss A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02 Rs.28,69,04,753/- and unabsorbed depreciation Rs.8

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1892/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji B. More
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

Transfer pricing study or the TP assessment. The selection of 18 comparables by the TPO is without any such filter. We appreciate that there is a marked difference in the profit earned from export and domestic sales of similar goods because of foreign market conditions and export incentives allowed by the Government of India. In such a scenario, some sort

M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1260/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 143(3)

nature of transaction or clause of transaction”. Rule 10A(d) defines the term “transaction” as including `a number of closely linked transactions’. Thus, it is evident that the two or more M/s. Carraro India Private Limited transactions can be aggregated for determination of the ALP, if they are closely linked transactions. 29. The Hon’ble Punjab & Hon’ble High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1308/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 143(3)

nature of transaction or clause of transaction”. Rule 10A(d) defines the term “transaction” as including `a number of closely linked transactions’. Thus, it is evident that the two or more M/s. Carraro India Private Limited transactions can be aggregated for determination of the ALP, if they are closely linked transactions. 29. The Hon’ble Punjab & Hon’ble High Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION OF INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 577/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.577/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment, if any, in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the TPO under the Act is fully justified in carrying out the fresh search, if needed, for identifying the proceedings. Such data collected by the TPO cannot be called as non- contemporaneous, where the concerns picked up by the TPO are functionally comparable and the data

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 592/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.577/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment, if any, in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the TPO under the Act is fully justified in carrying out the fresh search, if needed, for identifying the proceedings. Such data collected by the TPO cannot be called as non- contemporaneous, where the concerns picked up by the TPO are functionally comparable and the data

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 619/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 632/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. Level 2A & Level 3, Tower-5, Cyber City, Magarpatta, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013 Pan : Aaecs8099L .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 619/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Tower-5, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013 Pan : Aaecs8099L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Anurag Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Srivastava

transfer pricing study. The TPO has not accepted Thinksoft Global Services Limited as comparable company since the annual report of this Company was not available in public domain A.Y.2012-13 and as such rejected this company from the list of the comparable companies with that of the assessee company. 14. With regard to this company i.e. Thinksoft Global Services Limited

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 632/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 632/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. Level 2A & Level 3, Tower-5, Cyber City, Magarpatta, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013 Pan : Aaecs8099L .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 619/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Tower-5, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013 Pan : Aaecs8099L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Anurag Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Srivastava

transfer pricing study. The TPO has not accepted Thinksoft Global Services Limited as comparable company since the annual report of this Company was not available in public domain A.Y.2012-13 and as such rejected this company from the list of the comparable companies with that of the assessee company. 14. With regard to this company i.e. Thinksoft Global Services Limited

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh (through virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 253

transfer pricing documentation for FY 2016-17, the assessee has not considered Easun– Mr Tap Changers Pvt. Ltd., as it did not appear in the accept reject matrix at the time of preparation of TP study. The assessee would like to submit that Easun cannot be accepted as comparable to the manufacturing segment of the assessee

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1994/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

natural justice, and therefore liable to be quashed. 2. Interest on borrowings from Embassy Office Parks REIT amounting to INR 7,80,17,976 2.1 The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’ble. DRP’) has erred in upholding the order passed by Learned Transfer Pricing

KNORR-BREMSE TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-14,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1957/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Shri Shivaji B. More
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

transfer pricing adjustment at Rs. 4,20,77,778/- instated of Rs. 2.93 crores determined under the rectified order. In view of the fact that, we have excluded three companies from the list of comparable in the above paras, the data set of the companies shall undergo change and so shall be the median to be taken

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 515/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.515/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Danesh BafnaFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru

Transfer pricing adjustment made to the international transaction pertaining to cost recharges from Associated Enterprises and (iv) Initiation of penalty proceedings by the Ld. AO. 6. Referring to the first issue, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that there are six grounds under the same. Deviating from the same, Ld. Counsel submitted that except ground No.5, ground

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD) , CIRCLE -3,, PUNE vs. M/S. BOBST INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 445/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.445/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacb7295F C.O. No.42/Pun/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.445/Pun/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacb7295F बनाम / V/S. Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Assessee By : Shri R. G. Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 17.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Filed The Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri R. G. AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 143Section 144C(1)Section 254

Transfer Pricing Officer took charge by observing thus :- “11. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the other case laws, we are of the view that the new TPO should have given a show cause notice and also the copy of the material gathered by him which he wanted to use against the assessee