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.

17 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 43Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai11Hyderabad2Bangalore1Jodhpur1Kolkata1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)14Addition to Income12Transfer Pricing11Section 14810Section 92C8Section 143(2)7Section 41(1)7Section 144C6Section 80I6Disallowance5Section 2504Deduction3

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

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2951/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

For Appellant: Shri Rishav Patawari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, CIT DR
Section 115VSection 143Section 144CSection 28Section 43Section 92Section 92CSection 92F

transfer pricing provisions envisage computation of income from specified international transactions of receipt or expenditure, ofcourse with reference to the stated price of such transactions. This is completely in contrast to Chapter-XII G, where the stated price of the transaction has no relevance to the computation of income of qualifying ships, which is based on the weight

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

43C of the Act hence section 92 is not covered and therefore Transfer Pricing provisions are applicable to the assessee

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

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

ITA 1517/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

section 80HHC /80HHE etc. there is\nspecific provision to exclude from the \"Profit of the Business\", the other\nincome such as commission, brokerage, interest, rent etc. However,\nthere is no specific exclusion while computing deduction under section\n10A/10AA/10B of the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions,\nit is clear that, what is exempted is not merely the profits

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1656/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

transfer pricing officer has made an adjustment of ₹ 197,951,187 and the assessee has not shown the same as international transaction, the learned dispute resolution panel held that the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantee should be taken at 1% of the amount of guarantee. Accordingly, the objections of the assessee were disposed of. 018. Based

DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3272/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

transfer pricing officer has made an adjustment of ₹ 197,951,187 and the assessee has not shown the same as international transaction, the learned dispute resolution panel held that the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantee should be taken at 1% of the amount of guarantee. Accordingly, the objections of the assessee were disposed of. 018. Based

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

ITA 2244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act both under normal provisions of the Act\nas well as under the computation of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. We find\nthat the Id. CIT(A) had deleted the said disallowance by observing as under:-\n\"This is a matter arising for the first time in the case of assessee

M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4440/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 41Section 92B(2)Section 92C

transfer pricing, where\nthe said price of any transaction cannot be applied to while computing income of\nqualifying ships which are merely based on the weight of the ship and the number of\ndays it has been held for which Arm's Length Price has no relevance. It further held\nthat the provisions of Section 115VA overrides Section

M/S. VAN-OORD INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 5(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Raheja Towers, Opp. Sidbi, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach5430J ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Divesh Chawle, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Ld. DR
Section 114Section 250Section 28Section 92(1)

transfer pricing provisions envisage computation of income from specified international transactions of receipt or expenditure, of-course with reference to the stated price of such transactions. This is completely in contrast to Chapter-XII-G, where the stated price of the transaction has no relevance to the computation of income of qualifying ships, which is based on the weight

M/S SARAT CHATTERJEE & CO. vs. P PVT. LTD.,KOLKATAVS.ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 101/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

transfer pricing. Thus, Chapter X of the Act governs the determination of arm's length price of every / any international transaction with a view to prevent profit shifting to a foreign jurisdiction 3.4 Chapter Xll-G of the Act provides relates to special provisions relating- to income of shipping companies in terms of computation of profits and gains from

ACIT - 3(4), MUMBAI vs. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 482/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: \nNitesh JoshiFor Respondent: \nJasbir S. Chouhan a/w
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

43C, in the case of a company, the income from the business of\noperating qualifying ships, may, at its option, be computed in accordance\nwith the provisions of this Chapter and such income shall be deemed to\nbe the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the\nhead “Profits and gains of business or profession

SITAPURAM POWER LIMITED-ERSTWHILE AMALGAMATING COMPANY (NOW AMALGAMATED COMPANY-ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED),KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80ISection 92Section 92(3)Section 92BSection 92D

Pricing) DCIT, TPO-2, Hyderabad in the name of SPL 5. March 27, Draft Assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) read with 2021 section 144C of the Act by the additional / joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer, National e-assessment centre, Delhi in the name of SPL 2.8.2. the assessee got amalgamated with its holding company

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Saravanan B., D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 43C

transfer of 79 acres of land, irrespective of the Stamp Duty Valuation of the land. This price was fixed by the Hon. Arbitrator by taking into consideration all the facts of the case, including the Agreement of Sale executed in June 2009. Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 7 of 25 3.5 She submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer however

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3754/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: \nShri Madhur Agrawal a/w Shri Bhargav ParekhFor Respondent: \nShri Biswanath Das (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 41(1)

43C(6)(c)\napply where the capital assets enters a block of asset as in case of the\nassessee. Thus, as per the section what is required to be reduced is money\npayable in respect of asset sold, discarded, demolished and\ndestroyed.There is no provisions in section 43(6) to state that if value as\nperstamp duty is higher than

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4103/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2019-20
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 41(1)

43C(6)(c)\napply where the capital assets enters a block of asset as in case of the\nassessee. Thus, as per the section what is required to be reduced is money\nPage 11\nITA No. 3754/Mum/2023& ITA No. 4103/Mum/2023\nA.Y. 2019-20\nKotak Mahindra Bank Limited\npayable in respect of asset sold, discarded, demolished and\ndestroyed.There is no provisions

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

prices are quoted yielding lower profits. Moreover, cost of construction and other expanses keep on increasing Various contracts were required to be completed within strict time frame failing which contractual penalties were also too high. Besides these factors, the assessee-company took some of the projects on sub-contract basis on low profit margins." 3.2 On perusal of the audited

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1480/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

transferred 1/3 of the difference amount to profit and loss account under the head gain/ loss account during the F.Y 2008-09. The A.O, however held that the CBDT instructions No. 3 of 2010, 14 ITA.Nos.1689 & 1735 /Hyd/2012, M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. dated 23.03.2010 had dealt the issue of “marked to market” i.e where