BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

3,356 results for “transfer pricing”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi971Mumbai712Chennai215Hyderabad209Bangalore199Jaipur161Ahmedabad143Chandigarh116Rajkot79Kolkata79Indore76Cochin68Pune57Surat48Nagpur36Lucknow29Raipur26Guwahati20Agra20Dehradun18Jodhpur17Visakhapatnam16Amritsar16Cuttack14Patna6Jabalpur2Panaji1Varanasi1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income85Section 143(3)47Section 13231Section 6930Section 139(1)30Section 153C29Search & Seizure29Deduction28Section 26323Disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/938/2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Ms Suruchi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mayank Nagi &
Section 144CSection 260ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92E

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has been preferred by the Revenue against the judgment dated 18.02.2011 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, New Delhi, delivered in ITA No. 5203/DEL/2010 pertaining to the assessment year

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Showing 1–20 of 3,356 · Page 1 of 168

...
20
Section 69B16
Transfer Pricing16
ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J. This common judgment will dispose of these appeals and cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue in which one of the primary issue that emanates for consideration is whether advertisement, marketing and sale promotion expenditure (‗AMP‘, for short) beyond and exceeding the ‗bright line‘ is a separate and independent international transaction undertaken

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed

ITA/1114/2008HC Delhi04 Apr 2013
For Appellant: Ms Suruchii AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Adv. with Ms Husnal Syali
Section 92C(2)

JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In this appeal, the revenue has challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 02.11.2007, passed in ITA No. 1969/Del/2006, relating to the assessment year 2002-03. By virtue of an order dated 13.01.2011, a Division Bench of this court, while admitting the appeal, had framed the following substantial

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Shri NishantFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 15Section 153Section 2Section 32Section 92C

natural meaning, external aid for interpretation are unnecessary. In the present case, we are called 20 A.Y. 2009-10 Tata AIG General Insurance upon to adjudicate the period of limitation applicable to TPO under Section 92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section 153. xxxx 26. Further, the general interpretation by resorting to the meaning conveyed under the General Clauses Act cannot

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1058/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR
Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Sub-section (3) of Section 92CA provides that the TPO, after taking into account the material available with him shall, by an order in writing, determine the ALP in accordance with sub section (3) of Section 92C of the Act. Sub- section (4) of Section 92CA provides that on receipt of the order

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92BSection 92C

Justice G.P.Singh on the interpretation of statutes, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (1st Edn., ITA No. 162/Ahd/2021 (Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 21 – Lexis Nexis 2015), which is quoted below for ready reference: “The intention of the legislature thus assimilates two aspects: In one aspect it carries the concept of “meaning” i.e. what the words mean

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transfer pricing assessment or before the completion of the assessment proceedings. 1.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have erred in violating the principles of natural justice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand
Section 143(2)Section 92Section 92C

nature of stewardship or shareholder activity. The payment to Schaeffler Holding (China) Co. Ltd. at the actual costs incurred in providing such services plus 5% mark-up is at ALP, which does not require any transfer pricing addition. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order by holding that the international transaction of payment of Fees for Management services at Rs.5

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

ITA/110/2014HC Delhi11 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 92C

JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU J U D G E M E N T % 11.12.2015 Dr. S.Muralidhar,J.: Introduction 1. These are two appeals by the Assessee, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (‘MSIL’), under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). ITA 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page 2 of 45 No.110 of 2014 is directed against an order

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

ITA/710/2015HC Delhi11 Dec 2015
Section 260ASection 92C

JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU J U D G E M E N T % 11.12.2015 Dr. S.Muralidhar,J.: Introduction 1. These are two appeals by the Assessee, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (‘MSIL’), under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). ITA 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page 2 of 45 No.110 of 2014 is directed against an order

MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1065/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)

natural justice; and (d) Not issuing the show cause notice proposing transfer pricing adjustment during remand back transfer pricing assessment

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

ITA 2877/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/ ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 234BSection 234DSection 30Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

natural meaning, external aid for interpretation are unnecessary. In the present case, we are called upon to adjudicate the period of limitation applicable to TPO under Section 92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section 153. xxxx 26. Further, the general interpretation by resorting to the meaning conveyed under the General Clauses Act cannot be adopted while interpreting 92CA (3A), because

DCIT, KOL. , KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 286/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.286/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit, Kolkata.................................................................................Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd.................................................……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Raman Garg, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating That Arm'S Length Price & Fair Market Value Are Two Different Concepts & The Role Of The Tpo Is Limited To Determination Of Arm'S Length Price

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92F

nature of a Specified Domestic Transaction had been benchmarked by the assessee using the CUP Method at a price slightly lower than the respective notified State Electricity Board’s rate for both its units. For this, no adverse inference ought to be drawn in as much as due to such lower benchmarking of the price per unit of electricity than

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

ITA 1795/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 40Section 40(3)Section 48Section 4oSection 92C

natural meaning, external aid for interpretation are unnecessary. In the present case, we are called upon to adjudicate the period of limitation applicable to 26 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. TPO under Section 92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section 153. xxxx 26. Further, the general interpretation by resorting to the meaning conveyed under the General Clauses Act cannot

EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(22)Section 92Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer for A.Y. 2008-09. The nature of services in this year also is similar. In view of this, in the interest of justice

EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6881/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(22)Section 92Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer for A.Y. 2008-09. The nature of services in this year also is similar. In view of this, in the interest of justice

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer. The observation of the Ld. DRP is reproduced below: - 3.3 Directions: We have considered the relevant facts and the contentions of the assessee and find that the AO has made an addition on account of expenditure u/s.14A. This is evidence enough that the AO is not satisfied with the calculation of the estimation

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 802/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92F

nature of a Specified Domestic Transaction had been benchmarked by the assessee using the CUP Method at a price slightly lower than the respective notified State Electricity Board’s rate for both its units. For this, no adverse inference ought to be drawn in as much as due to such lower benchmarking of the price per unit of electricity than

DCIT CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 801/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92F

nature of a Specified Domestic Transaction had been benchmarked by the assessee using the CUP Method at a price slightly lower than the respective notified State Electricity Board’s rate for both its units. For this, no adverse inference ought to be drawn in as much as due to such lower benchmarking of the price per unit of electricity than

SAS INSTITUTE (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with above directions

ITA 1567/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Sas Institute (India) Private Tax, Circle 3(3) Limited Apeejay House, 3 Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 3, Dinshaw Wachha Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3149K Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, DR
Section 140Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Transfer Pricing Officer. Paragraph no.15 of the order of the co- ordinate Bench categorically deals with this issue as under. The order of the co-ordinate Bench reads as under:- “15. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant paper books filed before us. The undisputed facts are that