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 35(2)(ab)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi294Mumbai133Bangalore72Jaipur68Cochin62Hyderabad46Chandigarh30Chennai21Raipur18Ahmedabad17Indore16Kolkata12Pune10Dehradun8Surat3Lucknow3Jodhpur2Rajkot2Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)13Section 153C10Addition to Income9Section 1327Section 92C7Section 1477Section 80I6Section 139(1)6Survey u/s 133A

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92BSection 92C

2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) made reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) for the determination of ALP of the international transactions reported by the assessee in Form 3CEB. The TPO vide order dated 01/11/2019, passed under

6
Section 1275
Transfer Pricing5
Limitation/Time-bar5

M/S. TBEA SHENYANG TRASFORMER GROPUP COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAX.,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 581/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 581/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Tbea Shenyang Deputy Commissioner Of Transformer Group Income Tax Vs. Company Limited International Taxation, National Highway No.-8, Vadodara Villae : Miyagam, Karja, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct4557F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Arpit Jain, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit. Dr 24/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 O R D E R Per Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9Section 92C

ab-initio. In the facts and circumstances, the AO has erred in invoked provisions of section 92CA(1) without satisfying the conditions prescribed therein including applicability of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act It is submitted that it be so held now and such order may please he quashed or suitably modified. 2. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 145ASection 40

AB, and Concept Information, amounting to Rs. 15,21,424. These payments were made without complying with the tax deduction requirements specified under Sections 194J and 194C of the Income Tax Act. 8. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the payments included amounts such as Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 14,21,424 for which the Assessee did not deduct

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 145ASection 40

AB, and Concept Information, amounting to Rs. 15,21,424. These payments were made without complying with the tax deduction requirements specified under Sections 194J and 194C of the Income Tax Act. 8. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the payments included amounts such as Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 14,21,424 for which the Assessee did not deduct

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 249/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

ab initio. In appeal ITAT held that on facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 325/AHD/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

ab initio. In appeal ITAT held that on facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 250/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

ab initio. In appeal ITAT held that on facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

ab initio. In appeal ITAT held that on facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/AHD/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

ab initio. In appeal ITAT held that on facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue

HAZIRA PORT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CICLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 265/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ankit SahniFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C(3)

35,034 on Transfer Pricing issues. While making the said downward adjustment, the Learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred in: i. Not accepting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant in the manner as contemplated under the Act and Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). ii. Not respecting the provisions of section 92C(3) which provides that the Learned TPO/AO can proceed

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

transfer other than from P&L, without prejudice to above the Ld. AR further submitted that it is not necessary that the General Reserves are always created out of accumulated profits. General Reserves can be created in many ways including following transactions; general reserves can arise out of revaluation of certain assets due to amalgamation. The Ld. AR relied upon

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

AB Ltd 18 TC 59,73). It is, however, possible to urge in some cases that the crime is such that there can be no trade or business in the eye of law(as for instance, in house-breaking, burglary, or receiving stolen goods and re- selling the same) (Though it is doubtful whether such a contention is tenable

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

AB Ltd 18 TC 59,73). It is, however, possible to urge in some cases that the crime is such that there can be no trade or business in the eye of law(as for instance, in house-breaking, burglary, or receiving stolen goods and re- selling the same) (Though it is doubtful whether such a contention is tenable

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 297/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

35,00,000/- on or before 23.11.2014 and other Rs. 25,00,000/- on or before 22.12.2014 and fulfillment of other conditions (a) to (h) as mentioned in the order. SEIZURE OF CONSIGNMENT IMPORTED VIDE BILL OF ENTRY NO. 6328451. DATED 04.08.2014 AND ITS PROVISIONAL RELEASE. 7.1 During the course of statement dated 01.10.2014, Shri Omprakash K. Bishnoi, Authorised Person

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 296/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

35,00,000/- on or before 23.11.2014 and other Rs. 25,00,000/- on or before 22.12.2014 and fulfillment of other conditions (a) to (h) as mentioned in the order. SEIZURE OF CONSIGNMENT IMPORTED VIDE BILL OF ENTRY NO. 6328451. DATED 04.08.2014 AND ITS PROVISIONAL RELEASE. 7.1 During the course of statement dated 01.10.2014, Shri Omprakash K. Bishnoi, Authorised Person

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 54/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

Transfer Pricing addition :Rs. 60,83,440/- ii. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) :Rs. 1,68,88,558/- iii. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) :Rs. 3,82,99,313/- iv. Disallowance u/s 14A :Rs. 55,64,491/- v. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB :Rs.16,34,58,692/- vi. Disallowance of Foreign Currency Loss :Rs.25,39,60,000/- vii. Inadmissible expense

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1867/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

Transfer Pricing addition :Rs. 60,83,440/- ii. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) :Rs. 1,68,88,558/- iii. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) :Rs. 3,82,99,313/- iv. Disallowance u/s 14A :Rs. 55,64,491/- v. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB :Rs.16,34,58,692/- vi. Disallowance of Foreign Currency Loss :Rs.25,39,60,000/- vii. Inadmissible expense