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.

102 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi463Mumbai378Bangalore150Ahmedabad115Chennai108Pune102Kolkata84Jaipur47Hyderabad29Cochin26Raipur24Indore22Surat20Visakhapatnam17Chandigarh17Jodhpur12Cuttack10Rajkot9Karnataka5Guwahati4Agra3Calcutta3Amritsar3Nagpur2SC2Lucknow2Allahabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income65Section 12A36Section 14A35Section 37(1)35Deduction34Section 143(3)31Section 10(20)24Section 1124Section 92B20Section 40A(2)(a)

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

Pricing Officer’s Order making 30/10/2018 adjustments to Specified Domestic Transactions ITA No.2033/PUN/2019 / Uttam Energy Limited [A] 5.1 Before proceeding further we will reproduce the unamended Section 92BA (prior to 1/4/2017) as under : Meaning of specified domestic transaction. 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee

Showing 1–20 of 102 · Page 1 of 6

19
Disallowance17
Transfer Pricing12

DANA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 473/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing addition by the AO in the impugned order. 17.3. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee claimed to have incurred Rs.11.71 crore to Dana Corporation, USA for receipt of Sales, General and Administration services. The TPO determined Nil ALP primarily on the ground that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs. SPICER INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh
Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92C

40A(2) is only applicable to expenditure, transfer pricing provisions are applicable to both income and expenditure. He argued that the CIT(A) erred in relying the decision rendered by the ITAT on deductibility of expenses u/s. 37 of the Act in the context of section 92 of the Act. 7

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2986/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Adient India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, S No.235 & 245, Circle-1(1), Pune Hinjewadi, Tal-Mulshi, Pune - 411057 Pan : Aaact6342D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna Revenue By S/Shri Kalika Singh & Madhavan A.M. Krishnan Date Of Hearing 27-05-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31-05-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27-10-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called ‗The Act‘) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against Transfer Pricing Addition Of Rs.5,95,39,429. Succinctly, The Factual Matrix Of The Case Is That The Assessee Was Earlier A 50:50 Joint

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

transfer pricing provisions would be too simplistic an approach leading to laying down a preposterous interpretation of the Chapter-X. 7.5. There is another reason for not accepting the assessee‘s contention of accepting the SDT at ALP on the basis of reasonableness of the expenditure. All the cases relied by the ld. AR are the transactions between TACO

YAZAKI INDIA P LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS YAZAKI (I) LTD.,),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 621/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. Ergo, we order to delete the addition of Rs.2,96,50,650/- made on this score. This ground is allowed. 10 Yazaki India Private Limited 9. The next issue concerns the transfer pricing addition made by the Assessing Officer. Facts apropos this issue are that the assessee furnished report in Form 3CEB indicating

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 685/PUN/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2285/PUN/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 672/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

7. In respect of ground No. 2 relating to disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D, the ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted disallowance after taking into consideration the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 486/2014

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 834/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

7. In respect of ground No. 2 relating to disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D, the ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted disallowance after taking into consideration the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 486/2014

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 832/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

7. In respect of ground No. 2 relating to disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D, the ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted disallowance on the basis of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) & Anr. reported

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 670/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

7. In respect of ground No. 2 relating to disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D, the ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted disallowance on the basis of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) & Anr. reported

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1360/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

7 kg= 8,11,300 17.3.08 16328-15200=1128 x 9 kg= 10,15,200 66 kg= 50,96,700 13. Before First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the said decision of Assessing Officer constitutes guess work and therefore, should not be sustained. Absence of provisions for taxing the cases of lower sales price, similar to that of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ,, JALGAON vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS,,

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1547/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

7 kg= 8,11,300 17.3.08 16328-15200=1128 x 9 kg= 10,15,200 66 kg= 50,96,700 13. Before First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the said decision of Assessing Officer constitutes guess work and therefore, should not be sustained. Absence of provisions for taxing the cases of lower sales price, similar to that of section

P.N.GADGIL JEWELLERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1891/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1891/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia and Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 92C

7. Inappropriate consideration of segmental operating profit margins of the Appellant. Erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law in considering segmental operating profit margins related to gold and silver segment of the Appellant while applying TNMM instead of entity wide margins. 8. Inappropriate computation of transfer pricing adjustment on the entire segmental revenue

NAV MAHARASHTRA CHAKAN OIL MILLS LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1871/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1871 & 1872/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil V The Income Tax Officer, Mills Limited, S Ward-2(4), Pune. 43, Nav Maharashtra House, Near Shaniwar Wada, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaacn9941J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune Dated 27.07.2022 & 20.11.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 250(6)Section 92B

40A(2)(b) in respect of which TP Adjustment made by the learned TPO/AO and since the transfer pricing provisions were amended by Finance Act, 2017 to exclude specified domestic transactions which are under section 92BA read with 40(2)(6) from the purview of transfer pricing regulations, the said addition made of Rs.19,43,14,369/- was not justified

NAV MAHARASHTRA CHAKAN OIL MILLS LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(4) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1872/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1871 & 1872/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil V The Income Tax Officer, Mills Limited, S Ward-2(4), Pune. 43, Nav Maharashtra House, Near Shaniwar Wada, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaacn9941J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune Dated 27.07.2022 & 20.11.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 250(6)Section 92B

40A(2)(b) in respect of which TP Adjustment made by the learned TPO/AO and since the transfer pricing provisions were amended by Finance Act, 2017 to exclude specified domestic transactions which are under section 92BA read with 40(2)(6) from the purview of transfer pricing regulations, the said addition made of Rs.19,43,14,369/- was not justified

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be.] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

R.L. GOLD PVT. LTD. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1001/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Dr. Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D is warranted. In support of his submissions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd., 372 ITR 97 (Guj); iii. Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. R.L. GOLD PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1069/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Dr. Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D is warranted. In support of his submissions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd., 372 ITR 97 (Guj); iii. Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND AND SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Dr. Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D is warranted. 5.3 The ld. DR in respect of ground No. 3 raised in the appeal by the Revenue submitted that the assessee has accepted gold deposits as a capital of the partner on which the assessee has paid excess interest of Rs.28,53,942/-. The assessee has paid total interest of Rs.41