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”

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,536Delhi2,411Chennai558Hyderabad503Bangalore456Ahmedabad348Kolkata271Jaipur256Chandigarh198Pune198SC191Indore146Cochin134Rajkot111Surat105Visakhapatnam79Nagpur67Lucknow50Raipur48Cuttack39Amritsar36Jodhpur30Guwahati28Agra26Dehradun25A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN17Jabalpur11Patna10Panaji7Varanasi7Ranchi6Allahabad5DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE DIPAK MISRA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 11A15Section 412Addition to Income6Penalty5Section 11A(1)3Exemption3Section 4(1)(a)2Section 4(4)(c)2Section 11

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR-I vs. M/S. INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD

C.A. No.-001834-001834 - 2006Supreme Court21 Aug 2015
Section 4

price being paid for the goods, i.e. transfer of advance import licence in favour of the seller by the buyer

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-001959-001959 - 2006Supreme Court25 Aug 2015
Section 11ASection 11A(1)Section 38ASection 4

transfer of title in the manufactured goods. The amount paid or payable to the State Government towards sales tax, VAT, etc. is excluded because it is not an amount paid to the manufacturer towards the price

2
Section 38A2
Section 32
Limitation/Time-bar2

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

C.A. No.-006770-006770 - 2004Supreme Court20 Aug 2015

transfer of property in goods in the execution of a works contract is not different from that of a dealer in goods who is liable to pay sales tax on the sale price

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S NESTLE INDIA LTD

C.A. No.-000951-000951 - 2008Supreme Court24 Nov 2015
Section 11ASection 3Section 38A

Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 would apply and that the tea being captively consumed and not sold should be valued at 115% of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods. However, the show cause notice then goes on to say that as the said tea is transferred

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND C.E.NAGPUR vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

C.A. No.-000637-000637 - 2007Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 4

price for the goods and shown separately in the invoice for such excisable goods. Rule 7. Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal but are transferred

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ESSAR STEEL LTD

C.A. No.-003042-003042 - 2004Supreme Court13 Apr 2015

price actually paid or payable is the total payment made or to be made by the buyer to or for the benefit of the seller for the imported goods. The payment need not necessarily take the form of a transfer

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

transferred from one company to another; depots of Shaw Wallace and DIL were in the same premises; DIL sends monthly newsletters to Shaw Wallace showing production, despatches, purpose, technical problems, quality problems, details of power consumption etc. - and Shaw Wallace fixes the price

NIRLON LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and disposed of in the

C.A. No.-007642-007642 - 2004Supreme Court23 Apr 2015
Section 4Section 4(1)Section 4(2)

transferred to Tarapur factory were using identical raw materials and identical process. For this reason, the appellant believed that the products were comparable goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(i). (ii) Both the goods fall under the same sub-heading of the tariff entry as both are admittedly TCY. (iii) The price

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

C.A. No.-002150-002150 - 2012Supreme Court07 Dec 2015
Section 11ASection 4

price variation clause in the sale contract. Now, facts in some detail: The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The final products manufactured includes rails. The final products manufactured by the assessee are cleared on payment of appropriate duty

WIPRO LTD. vs. ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

C.A. No.-009766-009775 - 2003Supreme Court16 Apr 2015
Section 14Section 14(1)Section 156Section 22

price, again mandates that it is to be “to the extent they are incurred by the buyer”. That would clearly mean the actual cost incurred. Likewise, Clause (e) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 which deals with other payments again uses the expression “all other payments actually made or to be made as the condition of the sale

COMMNR.,CUSTOMS & CENT.EXCISE AURANGABAD vs. M/S. ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating

C.A. No.-005541-005541 - 2004Supreme Court23 Apr 2015
Section 11ASection 11A(1)Section 35LSection 4

price was the same/uniform all over the country, the cost of transportation was to be added.” 2 (2003) 5 SCC 507 Civil Appeal No. 5541 of 2004 Page 11 of 15 Page 12 JUDGMENT 11) In Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida v. Accurate Meters Ltd.3, the Court took note of few decisions including in the case of Escorts

M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006709-006709 - 2004Supreme Court23 Apr 2015

transfers data from the stamper to a CD. The programme which is duplicated on the CD is owned by the customer who is either himself the distributor or is a copyright owner. The distributor/copyright holder then, upon receipt of the duplicate copies from the appellant loads part of the royalty paid to the music producer on each such CD which

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD vs. M/S.GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES P. L.&ORS

C.A. No.-001947-001950 - 2003Supreme Court22 Jul 2015
Section 11ASection 11A(1)Section 4Section 4(4)(c)

price fixation. It was contended that the sale of goods by assessee to these two companies was on principal to principal basis and at arm's length. The Commissioner heard the matter and thereafter, passed Orders-in-Original dated 11.05.2000 confirming the demand in the show cause notice. Some penalties were also imposed. The matter was taken in appeal before

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

C.A. No.-005802-005802 - 2005Supreme Court29 Jul 2015
Section 11Section 11ASection 4(3)(a)

price is the sole consideration for the sale:” (4) For the purposes of this section, - (a) “assessee” means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent;” 11. Recovery of sums due to Government. - In respect of duty and any other sums of any kind payable to the Central Government under

M/S. ESCORTS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, FARIDABAD

The appeal is allowed accordingly

C.A. No.-006561-006561 - 2004Supreme Court29 Apr 2015

transferred any transmission assemblies to any other person. However, they have been supplying the transmission assembly to their own units at Nagpur and Rudhrapur for manufacturing tractors. (b) It is submitted that this letter can at most lead to a conclusion that the transmission assembly made by M & M is marketable. 50. The show cause notice has placed reliance

M/S IVRCL. INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

The appeal is dismissed with

C.A. No.-005282-005282 - 2004Supreme Court15 Apr 2015
Section 25(1)

Transfer Contract, M/s. Lintec supplied the drum assembly and the components for the manufacture of the plant by M/s. Marshall. No separate agreement had been entered either by the principal or the local representatives with the importer M/s. IVRCL. I find that the principal and the local representative of the supplier as per their discussion and communications with the importer

M/S. COAL HANDLERS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA

The appeals are allowed and

C.A. No.-007215-007215 - 2004Supreme Court05 May 2015
Section 65Section 65(25)Section 65(48)(j)Section 69

transfer of goods to their destination, which process may also involve clearance at subsequent stages during forwarding operations. In the opinion of the larger Bench, the procurer of orders on commission basis renders services which are not connected with such clearing and forwarding operations, which have bearing on the movement of goods. It also mentioned that normally