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.

5 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 36(1)(viii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi862Mumbai616Karnataka300Bangalore288Ahmedabad128Chandigarh123Chennai107Jaipur99Indore78Kolkata76Cochin75Hyderabad67Calcutta53Lucknow24Pune23Visakhapatnam21Rajkot20Guwahati18Raipur18Nagpur15SC15Cuttack14Jodhpur14Telangana13Agra12Surat11Kerala5Amritsar5Dehradun5Varanasi4Rajasthan4Orissa1Ranchi1Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)14Section 26313Addition to Income4Section 92C3Section 80I3Section 803Section 144C(5)2Section 144C(13)2Section 69

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 527/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

36,200 units of electricity transferred to the paper unit, the arm's length price works out to Rs. 2,08,32,55,524. The AR drew the bench's attention to the reply submitted before the DRP, where this objection was raised. Therefore, the AR argued that the DRP erred in reducing the rate to Rs. 3.875 per unit

2
Deduction2
Unexplained Money2
Cash Deposit2

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 702/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

36. The appellant has submitted the following documents before the DRP and AO:- a. Computation of profits under section 80-IA with details of captive revenue of the power undertaking; b. Copy of unit wise profitability of the Cogeneration Unit-I; c. General tariff rate for electricity supply to the industrial consumers for biomass power projects

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 627/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

viii). that no adverse inferences had been drawn by the department in the case of the alleged purchaser, viz. Sh. Surjit Singh, and in fact the reassessment proceedings that were initiated in his case for A.Y 2008-09 had been dropped by his A.O vide her order passed u/s 147/148(3), dated 23.03.2016; (ix). that the 10 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 628/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

viii). that no adverse inferences had been drawn by the department in the case of the alleged purchaser, viz. Sh. Surjit Singh, and in fact the reassessment proceedings that were initiated in his case for A.Y 2008-09 had been dropped by his A.O vide her order passed u/s 147/148(3), dated 23.03.2016; (ix). that the 10 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

ITA 250/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 cannot be taken into consideration and the Assessing Officer having taken a plausible view, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. Again, the Ld. Counsel, relied upon the judgment of Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of Sh. Jaswinder