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.

4 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 253(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai264Delhi228Jaipur41Chennai32Chandigarh30Bangalore22Pune19Kolkata16Ahmedabad14Lucknow10Indore9Rajkot9Dehradun8Cochin6Varanasi5Surat4Amritsar4Hyderabad3Allahabad3Cuttack2Raipur1Panaji1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 26311Section 686Section 1474Section 69C3Addition to Income3Natural Justice3Section 143(3)2Section 250(6)2Section 144

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

price. Thus, the Panel is of the view that the assessee has wrongly claimed the Income from Sale of RECs/ESCs u/s 115BBG of Income Tax Act, I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 22 Assessment Year: 2018-19 1961. Income from sale of REC/ESCs is normal business income few the assessee and needs to be included in the business income and taxed at normal tale

SHRI SUBASH CHANDER GUPTA & SONS,JAMMU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX , SRINAGAR

2
Section 144r2
Long Term Capital Gains2
House Property2

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

ITA 37/ASR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vinamar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 164Section 263

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the language of the section 263 it is apparently clear that opportunity of being heard has to be provided by Commissioner himself by way of issue of notice and show cause notices under section 263 of the Act and no other officer can perform this

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

253(P&H) in which it was held as under: Income-Addition-Abnormal appreciation in value of shares-Assessee having purchased shares in asst. yr. 2006-07 @ Rs. 11 per share and sold than in asst. yr. 2008-09 @ Rs. 400 per share AO was not justified in making addition on account of appreciation in value of shares treating

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

253(P&H) in which it was held as under: Income-Addition-Abnormal appreciation in value of shares-Assessee having purchased shares in asst. yr. 2006-07 @ Rs. 11 per share and sold than in asst. yr. 2008-09 @ Rs. 400 per share AO was not justified in making addition on account of appreciation in value of shares treating