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.

5 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 115Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai106Delhi101Bangalore9Kolkata5Chennai5Pune5SC1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)12Section 1958Double Taxation/DTAA5TDS5Section 144C(1)4Section 2014Section 9(1)(vi)4Section 143(3)2Section 115A2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2098/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2098/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishore Phadke & Vinay Ghanekar
Section 115ASection 115A(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under section 92CA(3); and (ii) in foreign company. 13. The issue which arises before us is whether in the present set of facts is there any variation in the income or loss returned by the assessee and the Assessing Officer not having passed draft assessment order had violated the provisions of section 144C

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 905/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

115A(1A) of the Act was on the Statute and the said section already was there, so definition of ‘royalty’ was covered. The amendment brought in to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was clarificatory in nature, for removal of doubts and cannot be said to be prospective application. He then pointed out that if it is literary work

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 906/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

115A(1A) of the Act was on the Statute and the said section already was there, so definition of ‘royalty’ was covered. The amendment brought in to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was clarificatory in nature, for removal of doubts and cannot be said to be prospective application. He then pointed out that if it is literary work

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 907/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

115A(1A) of the Act was on the Statute and the said section already was there, so definition of ‘royalty’ was covered. The amendment brought in to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was clarificatory in nature, for removal of doubts and cannot be said to be prospective application. He then pointed out that if it is literary work

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

115A(1A) of the Act was on the Statute and the said section already was there, so definition of ‘royalty’ was covered. The amendment brought in to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was clarificatory in nature, for removal of doubts and cannot be said to be prospective application. He then pointed out that if it is literary work