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.

32 results for “transfer pricing”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,462Mumbai1,248Bangalore1,166Pune262Kolkata252Chennai221Hyderabad195Ahmedabad156Karnataka63Indore35Visakhapatnam32Jaipur27Chandigarh21Cochin12Surat11Amritsar9Guwahati6Cuttack5Dehradun5Telangana5Rajkot4SC3Nagpur2Panaji2Ranchi1Raipur1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 92C51Section 143(3)39Transfer Pricing28Section 143(2)21Comparables/TP16Addition to Income13Section 142(1)11Section 143(1)10Section 263

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)

TP documentation maintained by the Appellant and the comparability analysis undertaken therein by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962, ('the Rules'); 3.2. Rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method ('CUP') as the most appropriate method, as applied by the Appellant in its transfer

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

9
Disallowance7
TP Method7
Section 92E5

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

method to analyse ALP of royalty paid to SPCM SA, France, vide agreement entered on 29/12/2004. The TPO further viewed that the payment made to AEs under prescribed FEMA guidelines cannot be taken as a benchmark and the Transfer pricing is altogether is a different subject and has to be analysed within the ambit of law prescribed u/sec. 92CA

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

method to analyse ALP of royalty paid to SPCM SA, France, vide agreement entered on 29/12/2004. The TPO further viewed that the payment made to AEs under prescribed FEMA guidelines cannot be taken as a benchmark and the Transfer pricing is altogether is a different subject and has to be analysed within the ambit of law prescribed u/sec. 92CA

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 Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 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

TP provisions are applicable to the assessee company covered under the Special Provisions relating to income of shipping company as prescribed under Chapter XII-G of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee has applied for registration for approval U/s. 115VP(3) of the Act allowing the company to exercise option under the Tonnage Tax Scheme. Accordingly

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

transfer pricing (TP) study and adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method as most appropriate method for bench marking the transaction

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

LEWEK ALTAIR SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, KAKINADA

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

ITA 93/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2018AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowala
Section 143(3)Section 92C

method was also rejected by the DRP and confirmed the adjustment proposed by the TPO. The AO passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144-C and made the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,05,50,730/- on bareboat charges and shipping management services. 3.4. For the assessment year 2013-14 also, same issue of determining the arm‟s length price

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

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

ITA 559/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowala
Section 143(3)Section 92C

method was also rejected by the DRP and confirmed the adjustment proposed by the TPO. The AO passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144-C and made the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,05,50,730/- on bareboat charges and shipping management services. 3.4. For the assessment year 2013-14 also, same issue of determining the arm‟s length price

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Mithilesh SannareddyFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

TP adjustment of Rs. 62,25,78,803/- thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 10 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 62,25,78,803/- made

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS(INDIA) LIMITED, DUGGIRALA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 433/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramesh Babu, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 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

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

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

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

ITA 626/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./(I.T.)I.T.A.No.626/Viz/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Teejay India Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Apsez, Pudimadaka Road Income Tax Atchutapuram Mandal Circle-5(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaco9452H] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Darpan Kirpalani ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan S

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transfer pricing (TP) documentation maintained by the Appellant under Section 92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence. 4.2. Rejecting the comparability analysis carried out by the Assessee in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis for processing services. 4.3. Not providing any methodical

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 340/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.340/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) & S.A. No. 15/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix, Apsez, Income Tax, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram Circle-5(1), Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530011. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaaco9452H (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

TP-3, Hyderabad (Ld TPO) passed U/s. 92CA of the Act is contrary to law and thus liable to be quashed. 5 Teejay India Private Limited vs. DCIT 3. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/TPO and the Ld. DRP erred in making an upward adjustment to the transfer price of the appellant

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 204/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Income Tax Office Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

price for the royalty payments. He therefore pleaded that the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in assessee’s own case be considered on this issue. 21. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The TPO has adopted the CUP method as most appropriate method for the payments of royalty by the assessee while determining

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

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

ITA 54/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri Suvibha NolkhaFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

TP Adjustment of Rs. 14,05,566/- pertaining to interest on working capital and term loans of Rs. 62, 64,747/- in respect of specific domestic transactions. Considering the TPO’s order, the Ld. AO completed the scrutiny proceedings and passed a draft order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3), dated 24/11/2016. The Ld. AO later finalized the draft assessment

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

price for the\nroyalty payments. He therefore pleaded that the decision of the jurisdictional\nTribunal in assessee's own case be considered on this issue.\n21.\nWe have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on\nrecord. The TPO has adopted the CUP method as most appropriate method for\nthe payments of royalty by the assessee while determining

ANDHRA PAPER LIMITED,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.349/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2020-21) Vs. Acit – Circle -1 Andhra Paper Limited 14-6-9, Admin Office Veerabhadrapuram Kateru Road Rajahmundry-533101 Sri Ramnagar S.O. (Rajahmundry) Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry (Urban) East Godavari – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaact8849D]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer, [in short “TPO’] under section 92CA(1) of the Act for determining Arm’s Length Price in respect of the International Transactions reported by the assessee during the A.Y.2020-21. As per Form 3CEB the following International Transactions have been benchmarked using CUP Method. Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.349/VIZ/2024 Andhra Paper Limited 35th to 65th Amount Method Description

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.156/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S Devi Sea Foods Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 50-1-51/1, A.S.R.Nagar Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(I) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcd0248B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

Method (TNMM). The assessee filed it’s return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 28.11.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.300,91,81,980/-. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] for determining Arms Length Price (ALP) u/s 92CA(3) in respect of its international transaction entered into with AE. In response

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 533/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

TP-3, Hyderabad (for short “TPO”) for determining the Arm’s Length Price (for short, “ALP”) in respect of all the transactions reported by the assessee-company in its Transfer Pricing Study Report (for short, “TPSR”) in its Form 3CEB. 4. The TPO vide his order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 31.10.2023, analysed the International Transactions

DEVI SEA FOODS LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.75/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Devi Sea Foods Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aabcd 0248 B Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri D. Anand, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 154Section 50Section 92BSection 92C

Method (TNMM). The assessee filed its revised return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 21.11.2018 admitting a total income of Rs 132,15,54,810/-. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] for determining Arms LengthPrice (ALP) u/s 92CA(3) in respect of its international transaction entered into with AE, after approval from