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.

12 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 2(24)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,587Mumbai3,231Bangalore1,378Kolkata598Chennai593Ahmedabad572Hyderabad547Pune467Karnataka433Jaipur380Chandigarh245Indore237Surat231Cochin174Rajkot92Visakhapatnam88SC81Cuttack69Telangana63Calcutta60Nagpur55Lucknow53Raipur50Amritsar39Agra30Guwahati27Jodhpur24Dehradun21Ranchi12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN12Varanasi10Allahabad9Rajasthan9Jabalpur8Kerala7Orissa7Panaji6Patna6Punjab & Haryana2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 11A13Section 45Penalty4Addition to Income3Section 11A(1)2Section 4(1)(a)2Section 112Section 38A2Section 3

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

transferred to various Branch Sales Offices from where they are sold to the customers. The sales either from the factory or from the BSOs are in terms of purchase Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 2012 & Ors. Page 3 of 29 Page 4 JUDGMENT 4 orders received from the customers. The assessee sold the rails to the Indian Railways in terms

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)
2
Exemption2
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 of DIL products; and unsecured loans of approximately Rs.55 lakhs were given by Shaw Wallace

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

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

transferred. (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. (3) Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in Sections 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time

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

24 Page 25 JUDGMENT without deduction of the cash discount) if the payment is not made in cash. In such cases, the cash discount, if allowed, will be admissible on the principle that only the net price obtained after deduction of the cash discount is the price of the goods.” “Illustrations. (iv) Assessee A sells the goods

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

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

24 of 37 Page 25 JUDGMENT be subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the underline principle whereof, as stated above, is to taken into consideration actual price of the goods unless it is impermissible because of certain circumstances stipulated therein. Keeping in mind this fundamental aspect, we have to examine the scheme of the Valuation Rules

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

Appeals are disposed of

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

2 SCR 320] it has been pointed out that in Article 366(29-A)(b), “[t]he emphasis is on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form)”. (SCC p. 669, para 32: SCR p. 347). This indicates that though the tax is imposed on the transfer of property in goods involved

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 of the goods was inclusive of cost of material, central excise duty, loading, transportation, transit risk and unloading charges etc. Even transit damage/breakage on the assessee account which would clearly imply that till the goods reach the destination, ownership in the goods remain with the supplier namely the assessee. As per the 'terms of payment' clause contained

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

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

2) it was stated that the purchaser would purchase the property from the seller at the stated price. Upon construing the terms 26 Page 27 JUDGMENT of the conditions, it was opined: (SCC p. 749, para 24) “24. Therefore, the process licence fees of DM 20,00,000 was rightly added to the purchase price by the Collector of Customs

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

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

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

transferred only to two sister concerns and no sale is involved, the assessable value of instant tea removed to the respondent’s own units would be determined on the basis of the export price of similar goods and not 115% of the cost of production. 2 Page 3 JUDGMENT 3. The order in original dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Additional

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

24, 2004 by observing that the matter is covered by its own judgment in the case of M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna1. The Tribunal has noted in this behalf that in the said case the Bench of the Tribunal had considered the definition of C&F Agent and has held that such definition