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 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 91clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,450Delhi1,327Bangalore553Karnataka312Chennai312Ahmedabad311Hyderabad235Pune202Kolkata196Jaipur166Chandigarh130Indore130Cochin121Calcutta51Visakhapatnam47Rajkot45Surat43Lucknow41Cuttack33Raipur28Telangana28Agra27Guwahati23SC21Jodhpur17Nagpur13Ranchi8Amritsar6Rajasthan4Dehradun3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Panaji3Allahabad1Patna1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1Orissa1

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

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

91,700/-) and I order 5 Page 6 JUDGMENT recovery of the same from them under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of the Central Act, 1944 and the first proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period of limitation of five years. (iii) I impose Penalty

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

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

transfer of licence or technical know- how for the purpose of setting up of a plant from the machinery imported or running thereof, the same would not be computed for the said purpose. Any amount paid for post-importation service or activity, would not, therefore, come within the purview of determination of assessable value of the imported goods

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