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.

129 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 13(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,903Mumbai4,611Bangalore1,886Chennai947Kolkata818Hyderabad703Pune689Ahmedabad676Karnataka515Jaipur440Surat289Chandigarh286Indore269Cochin213Visakhapatnam129Rajkot110SC105Telangana82Cuttack80Nagpur75Lucknow67Calcutta66Raipur64Amritsar46Agra38Guwahati36Dehradun32Jodhpur30A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN15Panaji13Ranchi13Rajasthan12Jabalpur12Varanasi11Kerala10Patna8Allahabad8Orissa6Punjab & Haryana3DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)116Section 92C43Addition to Income40Section 143(2)32Section 153A26Transfer Pricing26Section 80I22Disallowance21Section 148

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

price, which is not in violation of the provisions of\nsection 13 of the Act.\n12. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material\navailable on record, we are of the considered view that the basic purpose of\nsection 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(f) r.w.s. section 13(3)(cc) of the Act is to prohibit

LEWEK ALTAIR SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,KAKINADA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam

Showing 1–20 of 129 · Page 1 of 7

19
Section 143(1)19
Deduction19
Section 13218
14 Jul 2023
AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115VSection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92E

1) of the Act would thus be relevant to compute business profits as provided for in sections 28 to 43C of the Act. The Assessee has opted to be governed by TTS, thus the provisions of section 115VA would override section 28 to section 43C and hence income has to be calculated with reference to the registered tonnage

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 Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 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

section 37(1) is also required to be proved and argued that the TPO has rightly found that the assessee did not derive any benefit from the payment made for intangibles. Thus, there is no case for making the Royalty payment and the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had received the benefit out of payment

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

section 37(1) is also required to be proved and argued that the TPO has rightly found that the assessee did not derive any benefit from the payment made for intangibles. Thus, there is no case for making the Royalty payment and the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had received the benefit out of payment

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

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DC/AC 4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 152/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment to Rs. 1,66,18,290/-. The contention of the assessee was that agreement between the assessee and its AE was a composite one and could not be split up for the purposes of holding that some services are at arm’s length and some are not. The ITAT appears to have agreed with the above contention

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

ITA 229/VIZ/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

13\nITA Nos. 228, 229, 230 & 231/VIZ/2025\nC.O. Nos. 19, 20, 21 & 22/VIZ/2025\nVenkatrama Poultries Pvt Ltd., 552\nRs.93,943/-, which is no way connected to the unaccounted sales quantified\nseparately.\n36. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief of Rs 93,943/- as\nthe assessee company could not satisfactorily explain its claim or sales\nreturn

APPANA HARI NAGA VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 222/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleappana Hari Naga Venkat Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-32-7, Gokul Road, Visakhapatnam. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Adopa 5287 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54

price. The coordinate bench of the Ahmadabad tribunal, ‘B' Bench in the case of Rahul G. Patel (supra) has considered the (Appana Hari Naga Venkat Rao) issue in respect of unregistered sale agreement vis-a-vis application of proviso to section 50C held as under:- ―8. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section

SEEDS INTIMATE APPAREL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.21/Viz/2017, 04/Viz/2018 & 602/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Seeds Intimate Apparel India Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Plot No.C, Brandix India Apparel City, Circle-5(1) Sez, Pudimadaka Road Visakhapatnam Atchutapuram Mandal Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcb3644F] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijaya Raghavan,ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014- 15. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals A.Y.2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Seeds Intimate Apparel India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake

SEEDS INTIMATE APPAREL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 602/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.21/Viz/2017, 04/Viz/2018 & 602/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Seeds Intimate Apparel India Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Plot No.C, Brandix India Apparel City, Circle-5(1) Sez, Pudimadaka Road Visakhapatnam Atchutapuram Mandal Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcb3644F] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijaya Raghavan,ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014- 15. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals A.Y.2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Seeds Intimate Apparel India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake

SEEDS INTIMATE APPAREL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASST CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 21/VIZ/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.21/Viz/2017, 04/Viz/2018 & 602/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Seeds Intimate Apparel India Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Plot No.C, Brandix India Apparel City, Circle-5(1) Sez, Pudimadaka Road Visakhapatnam Atchutapuram Mandal Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcb3644F] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijaya Raghavan,ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014- 15. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals A.Y.2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Seeds Intimate Apparel India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 150/VIZ/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2025AY 2006-07
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

1) of the Act before the Income\nTax Settlement Commission, Chennai which was rejected by the Income Tax\nSettlement Commission U/s. 245D(2C) of the Act vide order dated\n21/07/2016. The assessee subsequently filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana against the order of the Income\nTax Settlement Commission. The Hon'ble High

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 136/VIZ/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2025AY 2006-07
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

1) of the Act before the Income\nTax Settlement Commission, Chennai which was rejected by the Income Tax\nSettlement Commission U/s. 245D(2C) of the Act vide order dated\n21/07/2016. The assessee subsequently filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana against the order of the Income\nTax Settlement Commission. The Hon'ble High

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/VIZ/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

price and, therefore, it is a case of the assessee receiving less amount as a profit.” 10.4 However, in the case of T.T.D. Co-operative Stores Ltd., supra, the counsel for the revenue sought to distinguish the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd, (supra), by stating that there is no such statutory direction to grant rebate in the case

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 173/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

price and, therefore, it is a case of the assessee receiving less amount as a profit.” 10.4 However, in the case of T.T.D. Co-operative Stores Ltd., supra, the counsel for the revenue sought to distinguish the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd, (supra), by stating that there is no such statutory direction to grant rebate in the case

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 177/VIZ/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

price and, therefore, it is a case of the assessee receiving less amount as a profit.” 10.4 However, in the case of T.T.D. Co-operative Stores Ltd., supra, the counsel for the revenue sought to distinguish the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd, (supra), by stating that there is no such statutory direction to grant rebate in the case

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 517/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

price and, therefore, it is a case of the assessee receiving less amount as a profit.” 10.4 However, in the case of T.T.D. Co-operative Stores Ltd., supra, the counsel for the revenue sought to distinguish the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd, (supra), by stating that there is no such statutory direction to grant rebate in the case

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

13) of the Act on 29.9.2017 making the upward adjustment of Rs.11,32,94,387/- on account of adjustment of corporate guarantee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O/DRP, the assessee carried the matter to the Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. A.R. argued that the assessee has conducted transfer pricing study and adopted the US Bond Yielding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. M/S CCL PRODUCTS(INDIA) LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 348/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.348/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2014-15) Dcit, Circle-1(1) Vs. M/S Ccl Products (India) Guntur Pvt. Ltd. Duggirala Post & Mandal Guntur [Pan : Aaacc9552G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Ramesh Babu, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 .04.2019

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Babu, AR
Section 92BSection 92C

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price (Comparables and Adjustments/Adjustments - Interest) - Assessment year 2011-12 - TPO noted that there was delay in receipt of payment from AE and observed that estimate period of 30 days would be considered as normal period for inter-company sales and services and any delay beyond

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SNF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 210/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

transfer pricing is altogether is a different subject and has to be analysed\nwithin the ambit of law prescribed under section 92CA of the Act. TPO was\nalso of the opinion that there is no direct benefit derived by the assessee\ncommensurate to the payments of royalty and hence ALP of such payment for\nroyalty be treated at either