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.

3,686 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai753Delhi717Bangalore366Karnataka261Kolkata239Chennai185Pune170Ahmedabad161Jaipur145Hyderabad99Indore85Chandigarh73Cochin60Calcutta51Visakhapatnam44Rajkot40Surat40Cuttack22Jodhpur22Raipur22Guwahati21Lucknow18Agra17Nagpur17Amritsar9SC8Telangana7Rajasthan6Varanasi6Dehradun6Panaji3Jabalpur3Allahabad2Ranchi2Orissa1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 26398Section 143(3)67Addition to Income59Section 153A32Disallowance31Section 14722Deduction18Transfer Pricing18Section 10(38)16Section 14A

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwallaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

section 133(6) of the Act was made available to the assessee. He has not properly evaluated all the objections of the assessee. The DRP also upheld the finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer by simply observing that the services provided by the company are largely in the nature of software services. Notably, in case of Invensys Development Centre India

Showing 1–20 of 3,686 · Page 1 of 185

...
15
Section 14315
Section 14814

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

263 of the income tax act and held that the impugned order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He directed the learned transfer-pricing officer to make fresh order 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 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

263 of the income tax act and held that the impugned order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He directed the learned transfer-pricing officer to make fresh order 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

263 of the income tax act and held that the impugned order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He directed the learned transfer-pricing officer to make fresh order 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

263 of the income tax act and held that the impugned order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He directed the learned transfer-pricing officer to make fresh order under section

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/11618/2016HC Karnataka27 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Section 142(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 263Section 92C

Transfer Pricing in International Transactions. Further vide the 2016 amendment, the right to appeal was specifically taken away in order to minimize these disputes. 16. Once the DRP has exercised its power under Section 144C of the Act, the Commissioner loses his jurisdiction to 14 exercise power under Section 263

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 263Section 35A

section 263 of the Act that the matter needs to be further enquired into. For this reasons it was held by the Gauhati High Court that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax nowhere mentioned as to what was the material with him to order enquiry into the matter by the Assessing Authority and as such the quashing

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

transfer price of an undeclared and unreported international transaction. The TPO must justify and establish that there was an international transaction. Satisfaction of the conditions can be also inferred from the findings recorded by the TPO. Only when these conditions are satisfied, the TPO would exercise his jurisdiction. Whether or not the said conditions are satisfied in a given case

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

ITA 2652/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 263

263 or 264 passed on or after 01.04.2019. − Clause (4) of Section 153 of the Act extends the time limits prescribed under sub-sections (1), (2) & (3) by a period of twelve months where a reference under section 92CA (1) has been made to the transfer pricing

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

ITA 112/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 263

263 or 264 passed on or after 01.04.2019. − Clause (4) of Section 153 of the Act extends the time limits prescribed under sub-sections (1), (2) & (3) by a period of twelve months where a reference under section 92CA (1) has been made to the transfer pricing

3I INFOTECH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules made there under. (b) The Id. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking the revisionary powers under section 263

M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

ITA 84/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

ITA 63/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

JMJ GANPATIJI MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 3521/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Khandelwal
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal

JMJ GANPATIJI MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 3522/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Khandelwal
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal

LIUGONG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1482/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Pardasani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

263,757,004 4 Plant & Machinery 159,559,104 5 Motor Vehicles 2,250,684 6 Computer 2,358,491 7 Office Equipments 1,228,519 8 Furniture & 7,602,787 Fixtures 9 Electric 45,103,409 Equipments Computer Software 1,283,424 TOTAL 653,533,002 RISKS ASSUMED In any business, an organization has to bear many kinds

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

transferred only to boost profitability and cash flow of appellant. (d) Valuation Report of INMAC is not reliable 10. That on the facts and in law to the extent the orders passed by both AO and CIT(A) are prejudicial to the interest of the assesse the same are bad in law and void ab-initio. 3. The revenue

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3865/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

transferred only to boost profitability and cash flow of appellant. (d) Valuation Report of INMAC is not reliable 10. That on the facts and in law to the extent the orders passed by both AO and CIT(A) are prejudicial to the interest of the assesse the same are bad in law and void ab-initio. 3. The revenue

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 3075/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KarlaFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 40Section 80ISection 92C

263 of the Act under the said section the Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) of the Act with respect to the operating profit margin shown by the assessee in the Engineering Design Services and consequently the deduction under section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

ITA/52/2023HC Delhi02 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: [Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263