Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

8,318 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 2clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,441 Delhi2,299 Chennai515 Hyderabad475 Bangalore434 Ahmedabad336 Kolkata257 Jaipur253 Chandigarh185 Pune184 Indore145 Cochin126 Rajkot111 Surat105 Visakhapatnam69 Nagpur66 Lucknow50 Raipur48 Cuttack37 Amritsar32 Jodhpur29 Guwahati27 Dehradun25 Agra25 Jabalpur11 Patna10 Varanasi7 Panaji7 Allahabad5 Ranchi4

Key Topics

Section 143(3)54 Addition to Income44 Section 92C35 Transfer Pricing34 Disallowance30 Deduction29 Section 115J27 Section 10A26 Section 14A24 Section 143(2)

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

section 92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. (2) Where a reference is made under sub-section (1), the Transfer Pricing

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 8,318 · Page 1 of 416

...

20

Comparables/TP19

ITA 1495/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed

ITAT Mumbai

20 Feb 2026

AY 2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 92D

2,81,17,008.\nThe Appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant relief in\nrespect of levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, in\nconsequence to relief granted in respect of the aforesaid grounds\nof appeal.\nGround 6- Levy of interest under section 234D of the Act\n6.1. On the facts and in the circumstances

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3585/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smiti Samant, Ld. D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

section 56(2)(viia) of the Act was inserted by Finance Act,\n2010 to prevent the practice of transferring of unlisted shares at\na price

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 50(2)(ec)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(as)Section 56(2)(ac)

transfer and on 31/01/2018, can it be held subject to capital gains u/s.45 r.w.s. 55(2)(ac) and 112A of the Act, particularly when at the material time, no statutory mechanism existed to determine the fair market value. This came only by the subsequent amendment brought by the Finance (2) Act, 2024. In the present case, section 55(2

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

price lower than the Fair Market Value (F.M.V) of the shares, does not attract provisions of the section 56(2)(viia) of the Act and Ld.ClT (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) are not applicable to the transactions defined u/s.47(vi), even though the proviso to section 56(2)(viia) does not specify the transactions

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

section 92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. (2) Where a reference is made under sub-section (1), the Transfer Pricing

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

Transfer Pricing Officer. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C makes it clear that where more than one price

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2002/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

2 also the order of the transfer-pricing officer is introduced with effect from 1/4/2022. As there is an introduction of the order passed by the learned transfer pricing officer under section

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2005/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

2 also the order of the transfer-pricing officer is introduced with effect from 1/4/2022. As there is an introduction of the order passed by the learned transfer pricing officer under section

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2003/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

2 also the order of the transfer-pricing officer is introduced with effect from 1/4/2022. As there is an introduction of the order passed by the learned transfer pricing officer under section

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2004/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

2 also the order of the transfer-pricing officer is introduced with effect from 1/4/2022. As there is an introduction of the order passed by the learned transfer pricing officer under section

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

transfer price has to be determined by the TPO in terms of Section 92C of the Act. The price has to be determined by using any one of the methods stipulated in sub-section (1) of Section 92C and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (2

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 92C

2,26,99,018/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C was passed on 30th November, 2015, wherein the only adjustment is the transfer pricing

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1994/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 92C

2,26,99,018/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C was passed on 30th November, 2015, wherein the only adjustment is the transfer pricing

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7523/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 92C

2,26,99,018/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C was passed on 30th November, 2015, wherein the only adjustment is the transfer pricing

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

2. The maintainability of the very proceeding is under challenge before us to this effect that the Transfer Pricing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) has erred in exceeding the jurisdiction by passing the transfer pricing order under Section

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

2 days 7 Transfer Pricing Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act 29.01.2013 Ought to be passed on/or before 8 Date on which Transfer Pricing Order u/s 92CA(3) is passed 30.01.2013 9 Date on which Final Assessment order was passed 26.04.2013 4. According to Sr. Counsel, as per the Section

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

ITA 116/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1516/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

sections": [ "90", "92C(3)", "92CA(1)", "37(1)", "80G", "14A", "135", "40(a)(i)", "40(a)(ia)", "115JB", "10AA", "195", "10A", "9(1)(vi)", "13(2)", "13(3)", "9(1)(iv)", "Article 25", "Article 7", "Article 12" ], "issues": "The appeals raised multiple issues including transfer pricing

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby\ndismissed

ITA 1044/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name