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 6(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,352Delhi2,151Chennai495Hyderabad466Bangalore425Ahmedabad326Kolkata252Jaipur249Chandigarh185Pune179SC167Indore145Cochin124Rajkot107Surat102Visakhapatnam65Nagpur64Lucknow50Raipur48Cuttack37Amritsar32Jodhpur29Guwahati27Agra25Dehradun25A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN17Jabalpur11Patna9Varanasi7Panaji7Allahabad5Ranchi4DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

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

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

2 of 29 Page 3 JUDGMENT 3 therefore, under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the assessee was liable to pay interest on the differential duty amount paid by it. The contention of the Revenue has been upheld by the Authorities below including Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

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
Section 38A2
Section 32
Limitation/Time-bar2
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

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

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

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

prices were ex-works, and that the goods were cleared from the factory on payment of central or local sales tax. Most of their sales were against Letters of Credit opened by the customer or through Bank discounting facilities. Invoices were prepared at the factory directly in the name of the customers, and the name of the Insurance Company

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

6 Page 7 JUDGMENT ''transaction value" means the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in addition to amount charged as priced, any amount that they buyer is liable to pay to, or on behalf of, the assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, whether payable at the time of sale

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

Appeals are disposed of

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

price would be left to the whims and fancies of the assessing authority. This argument was repelled by this Court after setting out Sections 2(g) and 2(ja), which define “sale” and “works contract”. The Court then went on to discuss Sections 9(2) and 13(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 9(2) of the Central

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

6. We have heard the parties at length. In our view, Section 4 has to be read as a whole. Under Section 4(1)(a), the normal price is the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where

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

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

transferred to ESSAR, unless otherwise specified in the Agreements. 9.5. ESSAR shall take all reasonable measure to avoid disclosures of the Technical Information to any third party and shall disclose the said Technical Information to third parties only to the extent mentioned in Clause 9.3 above. ESSAR shall use the Technical information only for the purpose of the execution

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)

Section 4(2) of the Act read with Rule 6(b)(i) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) was incorrect. This led to the issuance of two show cause notices to the appellant. First show cause notice is dated C.A. No.7642/2004 2 Page 3 JUDGMENT 25.02.2000 covering period from August, 1999 to January

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

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

2 QB 851 Civil Appeal No. 1834 of 2006 Page 15 of 23 Page 16 JUDGMENT desire' promised to convey the house to the widow during her life or for so long as she should continue a window, 'provided nevertheless and it is hereby further agreed' that she should pay £1 per annum towards the ground rent, and keep

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

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

6) As is clear from the reading of the aforesaid extracted portion of the order, the Tribunal has rested its impugned decision on its earlier judgment in the case of Prabhat Zarda (supra) and the reasons contained in the said judgment are restated in support of the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 7) It so happened

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)

2), 52, 173C, 173F, 173G of the Rules was also alleged and penal action was proposed under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rules 173 of the Rules, alongwith penal interest under section 11AB of the Act. The notice also invoked extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act for suppression of facts and willful

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)

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, certain items were exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act. We are concerned with serial No.217 of this notification which reads as follows: “217. 84 or any other Goods specified in List 11 Nil Nil 38 Chapter required for construction of roads.” The conditions