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.

57 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 155(15)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai297Delhi187Cochin61Chandigarh60Ahmedabad57Bangalore38Chennai36Jaipur36Hyderabad27Raipur19Surat17Rajkot16Pune11Kolkata11Nagpur10Cuttack7Visakhapatnam6Lucknow5Jodhpur3Indore3Jabalpur2Guwahati2Amritsar2

Key Topics

Section 143(3)47Section 14A39Section 8029Addition to Income27Section 153A26Disallowance26Penalty14Section 56(2)(x)13Section 271

ASANDAS & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1854/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144C(5)Section 920

15,99,74,674 by directly comparing the prices of potatoes sold by Associated Enterprise ("AE") i.e., Hyfun Agrilink Private Limited ("HAPL") to Appellant vis-à-vis prices of potatoes sold by AE to third parties without making pricing adjustments as per Rule 108 which could materially affect the price in the open market as are required to be made

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

12
Limitation/Time-bar11
Section 80I10
Depreciation10
ITAT Ahmedabad
10 Apr 2024
AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

155 September 4,025 4,500 4,263 October 4,500 5,048 4,774 November 5,048 4,845 4,947 December 4,845 4,682 4,764 January 4,682 4,721 4,702 February 4,721 5,286 5,004 March 5,286 5,421 5,354 Total 53,546 Annual Average of Monthly Average tax free

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, Shri Ajit KumarFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 153(4)Section 153CSection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

15 of 2014), Merck Limited (Bombay High Court) (ITA No. 1272 of 2014)]. Further, the High Court's have also held on various occasions that the TPO's jurisdiction is limited to ITA No. 392/Ahd/2023 [Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 19 – determine the arm'slength price of a transaction and does not have the jurisdiction to examine

SHRI DILIP MANIBHAI PRAJAPATI,DHOLKA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 179/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Dilip Manibhai Prajapati Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) 1, Shitalnath Society Ahmedabad. Opp: Aath Gam Patel Wadi, Saroda Road Kalikund Dhoka 382 225 Pan : Acspp 9801 C

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR, and Shri Samir Vora, AR
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

price for which it was purchased being Rs.2,01,00,000/-. He contended that since this matter had already been considered by the DVO in the case of third co- purchaser of the property, finding no material difference in the actual consideration for which the property was purchased, and its fair market value, the authorities below had erred in considering

JMC-MSKE(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 829/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification

BGSCTPL- MSKEL (JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 828/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification

JMC-MSKE(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 830/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification

BGSCTPL- MSKEL CONSORTIUM,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2498/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification

CLAYKING MINERALS LLP,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)

transfer of such immovable property: Provided also that where the stamp duty value of immovable property is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 50C, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer, and the provisions of section 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall

KALPTARU INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-3 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

price was below the stamp duty valuation. It was held that the AO had been directed by the earlier 263 order to specifically address this issue, but had failed to take the appropriate action by not waiting for the DVO report and simply accepting the returned income. In these facts, PCIT held that the AO should have provisionally adopted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 109/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

15 25. Ground of appeal No. 2 reads as under:- “2 Reduction of unrealized export proceeds from export turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 10B - Rs. 6,35,631/- 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the reduction of the export turnover

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 111/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

15 25. Ground of appeal No. 2 reads as under:- “2 Reduction of unrealized export proceeds from export turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 10B - Rs. 6,35,631/- 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the reduction of the export turnover

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 116/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

15 25. Ground of appeal No. 2 reads as under:- “2 Reduction of unrealized export proceeds from export turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 10B - Rs. 6,35,631/- 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the reduction of the export turnover

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 112/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

15 25. Ground of appeal No. 2 reads as under:- “2 Reduction of unrealized export proceeds from export turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 10B - Rs. 6,35,631/- 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the reduction of the export turnover

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 113/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

15 25. Ground of appeal No. 2 reads as under:- “2 Reduction of unrealized export proceeds from export turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 10B - Rs. 6,35,631/- 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the reduction of the export turnover

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 110/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

15 25. Ground of appeal No. 2 reads as under:- “2 Reduction of unrealized export proceeds from export turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 10B - Rs. 6,35,631/- 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the reduction of the export turnover

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 118/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

15 25. Ground of appeal No. 2 reads as under:- “2 Reduction of unrealized export proceeds from export turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 10B - Rs. 6,35,631/- 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the reduction of the export turnover

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 117/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsn

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

15 25. Ground of appeal No. 2 reads as under:- “2 Reduction of unrealized export proceeds from export turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 10B - Rs. 6,35,631/- 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the reduction of the export turnover

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

15. Next Ground No.7 is disallowance of long term loss on sale of land amounting to Rs.49,80,848/=. The assessee acquired leasehold rights of plot of land vide Lease Agreement dated 16-09- 2010 for a consideration of Rs.1,07,06,320/= which was surrendered back for Rs.1,04,38,662/= during this asst. year after indexation which

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

15. Next Ground No.7 is disallowance of long term loss on sale of land amounting to Rs.49,80,848/=. The assessee acquired leasehold rights of plot of land vide Lease Agreement dated 16-09- 2010 for a consideration of Rs.1,07,06,320/= which was surrendered back for Rs.1,04,38,662/= during this asst. year after indexation which