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.

14 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 10B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi859Mumbai748Bangalore598Kolkata182Pune159Chennai138Ahmedabad124Hyderabad122Karnataka73Jaipur37Lucknow20Cuttack15Cochin15Visakhapatnam14Indore11Amritsar9Surat9Telangana8Ranchi6Guwahati6Chandigarh5Calcutta5Agra4Nagpur4Varanasi4Panaji2Orissa2Jodhpur2Rajkot2Raipur1SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)15Section 92C10Transfer Pricing10Section 2639Section 10B9Section 10A6Addition to Income6Comparables/TP6Section 143(2)

THE DY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. SNF (INDIA) LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 280/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain – ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR

transfer pricing scheme, the expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business is the allowable expenditure as per section 37(1) of the act, hence argued that the department cannot confine itself to the provisions of section 92CA(3) r.w.r. 10B

THE DY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. SNF (INDIA) LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 279/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam
5
Section 92B(1)5
Section 271A3
Revision u/s 2633
04 Oct 2019
AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain – ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR

transfer pricing scheme, the expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business is the allowable expenditure as per section 37(1) of the act, hence argued that the department cannot confine itself to the provisions of section 92CA(3) r.w.r. 10B

OCEAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/VIZ/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blei.T. (T.P.) A. No. 150/Viz/2016 (Asst. Year : 2011-12) M/S. Teejay India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle-5(1), (Formerly Known As Ocean Visakhapatnam. India Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. 15, Brandix India Apparel City Pvt. Ltd. Sez, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaco 9452 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Tolani/For Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

1), Visakhapatnam ('learned Assessing Officer' or 'learned AO') and Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing) ('learned Transfer Pricing Officer' or 'learned TPO') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

DR KONDABOLU BASAVAPUNAIAH & DR LAKSHMI PRASAD TRUST,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

ITA 56/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

10B, it was observed that the assessee has declared that the\nproperty was sold by the assessee to one of its Trustees, viz., Dr Kondabolu Vara\nPrasad, during the year under consideration. As per the sale deed filed, it was\nnoticed that the assessee Trust sold its land admeasuring 1675 Sq. Yards at\nKoritipadu for a total consideration of Rs.1

M/S, ACN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVTL LTD.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE CIT (A),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.79/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-2013) M/S Acn Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) D.No.9-14-3A, Visakhapatnam Balaji’S Mangalagiri Chambers Vip Road Visakhapatnam [Pan:Aafca7810A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 1Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(1)

transfer pricing provisions. We extract relevant part of the order of the coordinate bench in para No.13 and 14 which reads as under : “13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The first issue which arises by way of ground of appeal No.3 is whether the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under section 10B

GVR POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KADIYAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

ITA 530/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal
Section 92C

10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before comparing the rate chart by various banks as guarantee fee with guarantee fee charged by the independent companies. The assessee also argued that the A.O. has not brought on record the terms and conditions of the comparable transaction of guarantee of State Bank of India which has charged the bank guarantee commission

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

ITA 434/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.434/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3F Industries Limited V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1 Aayakar Bhavan Pb No. 15, Tanuku Road Veerabhadrapuram Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh - 534102 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaacf2643K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

Price [ALP] of the transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.434/VIZ/2024 3F Industries Limited Enterprises [AEs] outside India. The Ld. TPO in his report made U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act observed that during the year, the assessee has provided Corporate Guarantee on behalf of its subsidiaries. The Ld. TPO also observed that

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 44/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.(Tp).A. No.44/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix India Apparel Income Tax, City Private Limited Sez, Circle-5(1), 2Nd Floor, Direct Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram, Taxes Building, Mvp Double Visakhapatnam – 530 011. Road, Visakhapatnam, Pan: Aaaco 9452 H Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kirpalani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

transfer pricing documentation was prepared by the assessee; 3.3 Disregarding the peculiar economic conditions faced by the assessee during AY 2012-13 for carrying out its manufacturing operations; 3.4. Not providing appropriate adjustment under Rule 10B(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of 3.4.1.Abnormal business loss suffered by the assessee; 3.4.2.Underutilization of capacity by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, DUGGIRALA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

transfer pricing is a legislation seeking the tax- payers to organise their affairs in a manner compliant with the norms set-out. In short, it is an anti abuse legislation which tells you as to what is the acceptable behaviour but it does not trigger levy of tax in a retrospective manner because no party can be asked

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

transfer pricing is a legislation seeking the tax- payers to organise their affairs in a manner compliant with the norms set-out. In short, it is an anti abuse legislation which tells you as to what is the acceptable behaviour but it does not trigger levy of tax in a retrospective manner because no party can be asked

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

transfer pricing is a legislation seeking the tax- payers to organise their affairs in a manner compliant with the norms set-out. In short, it is an anti abuse legislation which tells you as to what is the acceptable behaviour but it does not trigger levy of tax in a retrospective manner because no party can be asked

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 225/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. Suvibha Nolkha, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad for computation of Arm’s Length Price [ALP] of the transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises [AEs] outside India. The Ld. TPO in his report made U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act observed that during the year, the assessee has provided Corporate Guarantee on behalf of 3F Singapore and 3F Ghana

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2020-21) 3F Industries Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 15, Tanuku Road, Income Tax, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Circle-1, District, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaacf2643K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

Price [ALP] of the transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises [AEs] outside India. The Ld. TPO in his report made U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act observed that during the year, the assessee has provided Corporate Guarantee on behalf of its subsidiaries. The Ld. TPO also observed that the assessee has reported the same in Form

M/S MIRACLE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS (I) PVT., LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 43/VIZ/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.43/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09) M/S. Miracle Software Systems (I) Vs. Dcit, Pvt Ltd., Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabcm 4988 R (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sashtri, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sashtri, CAFor Respondent: Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR
Section 10ASection 144C(3)Section 92C

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in applying the provisions of transfer pricing when the appellant is eligible for the tax holiday under section 10A of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in rejecting/modifying the claim for elimination of depreciation, the same being