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.

4 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi486Mumbai393Karnataka255Bangalore121Jaipur88Chennai80Chandigarh73Kolkata72Ahmedabad72Calcutta50Hyderabad39Cochin37Pune26Indore25Raipur20Guwahati16Telangana15Lucknow12Surat10Cuttack10Jodhpur7SC7Nagpur4Rajkot4Amritsar4Rajasthan3Visakhapatnam3Kerala2Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 153C6Section 40A(3)4Section 263(1)2Section 1322Section 153A2Section 143(2)2Section 2502Section 143(3)2Search & Seizure

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

ITA 324/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

194-C is not applicable in this case as no oral or written agreement or contract was there. 7.1. Mr Singla has respectfully relied on judgement of High Court of Punjab and Haryanain the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarhv.BhagwatiSteels[2011] 198 Taxman 275 (Punjab & Haryana); “Re: Question No. 1. On the first question, the Tribunal recorded a categorical

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

2
Depreciation2
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2

In the result the ground no

ITA 325/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

194-C is not applicable in this case as no oral or written agreement or contract was there. 7.1. Mr Singla has respectfully relied on judgement of High Court of Punjab and Haryanain the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarhv.BhagwatiSteels[2011] 198 Taxman 275 (Punjab & Haryana); “Re: Question No. 1. On the first question, the Tribunal recorded a categorical

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

ITA 206/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

ITA 207/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession