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.

7 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 801A(3)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai125Ahmedabad65Delhi55Kolkata32Indore15Chennai15Hyderabad14Cuttack10Jaipur9Pune7Jodhpur4Calcutta4Visakhapatnam3Bangalore3Raipur3Nagpur2Dehradun2Rajkot2Cochin1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 10A22Section 3518Section 14A6Deduction6Disallowance6Addition to Income6Section 80I5Section 10A(7)5Transfer Pricing4Comparables/TP

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

ITA 359/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 359/Pun/2013 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney & Ms. Rhea AmarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 801ASection 80I

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellate using the Transaction Net Margin Method ('TNMM') and erroneously and inappropriately applied no method to determine the arm's length price as NIL, without providing any comparable transaction and without any cogent reasoning, thereby disregarding Rule 10B and Rule 10C. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

4
Section 143(2)2
Section 143(3)2

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 66/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

Transfer Pricing study report, he invoked section 10AA(9) read with section 801A(10) and re-computed the ordinary profits of the assessee company based on the arithmetic mean of the profits of comparable entities in the TP study. 5.3.1 However I feel that AO has to establish the arrangement before proceeding to disregard the profits declared by the assessee

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 133/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

Transfer Pricing study report, he invoked section 10AA(9) read with section 801A(10) and re-computed the ordinary profits of the assessee company based on the arithmetic mean of the profits of comparable entities in the TP study. 5.3.1 However I feel that AO has to establish the arrangement before proceeding to disregard the profits declared by the assessee

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -4 , PUNE vs. M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 497/PUN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 497, 498 & 499/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan &
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35

801A(10) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself in the comparables furnished in its transfer pricing report had 'shown 'ordinary profit' to be of 18.27% as against net profit 'margin of 35.04% shown by the assessee. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or omit any of the above grounds

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1, PUNE vs. M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 498/PUN/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 497, 498 & 499/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan &
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35

801A(10) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself in the comparables furnished in its transfer pricing report had 'shown 'ordinary profit' to be of 18.27% as against net profit 'margin of 35.04% shown by the assessee. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or omit any of the above grounds

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , PUNE vs. M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 499/PUN/2020[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 497, 498 & 499/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan &
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35

801A(10) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself in the comparables furnished in its transfer pricing report had 'shown 'ordinary profit' to be of 18.27% as against net profit 'margin of 35.04% shown by the assessee. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or omit any of the above grounds

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 926/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 80I

price paid for the shares when they were acquired as stock-in-trade.” 5. The submission so made did not find favour with the Assessing Officer who after referring to provisions of Section 2(47) and Section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) held that the conversion of stock-in-trade into