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.

39 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 199(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi407Mumbai300Karnataka249Ahmedabad114Bangalore107Chennai106Chandigarh85Kolkata76Jaipur52Calcutta51Hyderabad41Pune39Lucknow23Indore23Rajkot22Raipur19Telangana12Cochin7SC5Jodhpur4Nagpur4Allahabad3Cuttack3Rajasthan3Amritsar2Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Surat1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)31Addition to Income23Transfer Pricing21Section 8018Comparables/TP13Section 143(2)12Section 201(1)12Section 54F8Section 1958

M/S EATON POWER QUALITY P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 119/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

2 Operations review September 4, 2007 Update that the Encore services Extra Data Pass did not complete successfully (Refer Page 113 to 114 of paper book) September 17, 2007 Oracle Login issues (Refer Page 126 of paper book) 3 Information Technology September 15, 2008 Encore training („IT‟) infrastructure September 09, 2008 (Refer Page 109 to 112 support services August

M/S. EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1373/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

TP Method8
Section 14A7
Double Taxation/DTAA7
ITAT Pune
11 Sept 2018
AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

2 Operations review September 4, 2007 Update that the Encore services Extra Data Pass did not complete successfully (Refer Page 113 to 114 of paper book) September 17, 2007 Oracle Login issues (Refer Page 126 of paper book) 3 Information Technology September 15, 2008 Encore training („IT‟) infrastructure September 09, 2008 (Refer Page 109 to 112 support services August

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 price can be charged if a subsidiary corporation utilizes services taking into consideration only the circumstances of the parent corporation, and if the subsidiary corporation, considering only its own circumstances, would not have utilized the services had it been as independent enterprises. The services must actually be performed. The mere availability of services within a group is not sufficient

MERCEDEZ-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 380/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2009-10. 6 CO No.24/PUN/2014 & Ors 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the royalty expenditure of Rs 8,10,18,409 as capital expenditure for AY 2009-10. The Appellant prays that the entire royalty expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 534/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2009-10. 6 CO No.24/PUN/2014 & Ors 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the royalty expenditure of Rs 8,10,18,409 as capital expenditure for AY 2009-10. The Appellant prays that the entire royalty expenditure

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PRVIATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 514/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2009-10. 6 CO No.24/PUN/2014 & Ors 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the royalty expenditure of Rs 8,10,18,409 as capital expenditure for AY 2009-10. The Appellant prays that the entire royalty expenditure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 566/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2009-10. 6 CO No.24/PUN/2014 & Ors 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the royalty expenditure of Rs 8,10,18,409 as capital expenditure for AY 2009-10. The Appellant prays that the entire royalty expenditure

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 486/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 143(3)

2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2009-10. 6 CO No.24/PUN/2014 & Ors 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the royalty expenditure of Rs 8,10,18,409 as capital expenditure for AY 2009-10. The Appellant prays that the entire royalty expenditure

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)

2. Unjustified application of turnover filter Erred in applying a turnover filter of Rs 100 crores for identifying comparable companies and accordingly, rejecting companies having turnover less than Rs 100 crores. 3. Non consideration of contemporaneous data Erred in conducting arm’s length analysis based on information of comparable companies available at the time of transfer pricing assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. VENTURA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1800/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

transfer pricing proceeding is that the contours of an un-controlled transaction shall reflect a measure of arm's length price of the tested international transaction. The un-controlled transaction, if it reflects a loss, would not normally be excludible unless any peculiarity in such un-controlled transaction is brought out. For instance, the un-controlled transaction

VENTURA (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

transfer pricing proceeding is that the contours of an un-controlled transaction shall reflect a measure of arm's length price of the tested international transaction. The un-controlled transaction, if it reflects a loss, would not normally be excludible unless any peculiarity in such un-controlled transaction is brought out. For instance, the un-controlled transaction

RIETER INDIA PVT.LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1947/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rieter India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Gat No.768/2, Circle-5, Shindewadi-Bhor Road, Pune Village Wing, Taluka Khandala, District Satara – 412 801 Pan : Aaacr3556P Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)

2. Without prejudice to above ground, in case transfer pricing adjustment of INR 59,87,15,956 in relation to the international transactions pertaining to manufacturing operations is sustained, subvention receipt should be set off against transfer pricing adjustment and the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the extent it is excess of subvention receipt

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.7,36,97,574/- which were allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on his decision in preceding AY 2015-16 in assessee’s own case involving the identical issues in respect of export of parts and component-service spares and export of parts and components – global sourcing and payment of corporate guarantee fees. Before

KOHLER POWER (I) P LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS LOMBARDINI INDIA PVT. LTD.,),AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2467/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2467/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Smt. Mugdha Sardeshpande, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 274Section 92C

199 ITR 351 (Bom.) 3. We have heard the submissions of the assessee and have perused the relevant documents filed before us as well as judicial pronouncements placed before us. Respectfully, following the binding judgments referred before us and taking totality of facts and circumstances, we are convinced that additional grounds goes to the root of the matter in deciding

KALU NAMDEO NANDGUDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1598/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(2)Section 50C

transferred in the name of M/s. Bhoomi Enterprises vide registered Sale deed dated 08-03-2011. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C and determined the value of property at Rs.2,71,57,500/- based on Government valuation for stamp purposes. The Assessing Officer computed assessee‟s share at Rs.82,11.000/-. After allowing the benefit of indexed cost

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)

199 (Bangalore – Trib.) and in the case of Secondment of skilled personnel for rendering services, amount received was taxable in the hands of overseas company and he stated that in such scenario, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. When the hearing was commenced on the next day, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stressed that

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)

199 (Bangalore – Trib.) and in the case of Secondment of skilled personnel for rendering services, amount received was taxable in the hands of overseas company and he stated that in such scenario, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. When the hearing was commenced on the next day, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stressed that

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)

199 (Bangalore – Trib.) and in the case of Secondment of skilled personnel for rendering services, amount received was taxable in the hands of overseas company and he stated that in such scenario, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. When the hearing was commenced on the next day, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stressed that

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)

199 (Bangalore – Trib.) and in the case of Secondment of skilled personnel for rendering services, amount received was taxable in the hands of overseas company and he stated that in such scenario, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. When the hearing was commenced on the next day, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stressed that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 539/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

For Appellant: ShriJ.G. Pendse, ARFor Respondent: ShriM.M. Chate, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92(2)Section 92B

199) 237 ITR 579 when it was not derived from the activities of the eligible business? 2(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the allowances made u/s 14A of the Act by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held