Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

20 results for “transfer pricing”+ Penny Stockclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai371 Delhi171 Chennai95 Kolkata85 Ahmedabad64 Jaipur59 Indore53 Calcutta35 Chandigarh32 Hyderabad29 Cuttack23 Pune23 Bangalore20 Guwahati19 Surat18 Rajkot16 Nagpur10 Lucknow10 Amritsar6 Patna5 Varanasi5 Raipur4 Jodhpur2 Visakhapatnam2 Karnataka1 Agra1 Orissa1 Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 6842 Section 14826 Section 69C24 Section 10(38)20 Capital Gains19 Section 14417 Section 234D16 Addition to Income14 Section 147

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line

13

Natural Justice12

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 1,99,52,625/-. 21. That the Learned authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.5,98,578/- u/s 69C of the Act without adducing any evidence in support of the same. 22. That the Learned authorities below erred in estimating 3% of capital gains as the commission paid

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 1,99,52,625/-. 21. That the Learned authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.5,98,578/- u/s 69C of the Act without adducing any evidence in support of the same. 22. That the Learned authorities below erred in estimating 3% of capital gains as the commission paid

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 1,99,52,625/-. 21. That the Learned authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.5,98,578/- u/s 69C of the Act without adducing any evidence in support of the same. 22. That the Learned authorities below erred in estimating 3% of capital gains as the commission paid

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 1,99,52,625/-. 21. That the Learned authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.5,98,578/- u/s 69C of the Act without adducing any evidence in support of the same. 22. That the Learned authorities below erred in estimating 3% of capital gains as the commission paid

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 68

penny stock. However, their statements were not provided to the assessee for the rebuttal and cross examination. It was also not brought on record that any of the person whose statement was recorded has specified the name of the assessee or his broker. We also note that there was no allegation against the broker through whom the assessee sold

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 379/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

price of the scrips to facilitate several persons to book artificial Long term capital gains and claiming the same as exempt income. As the assessee had invested in shares of one such script namely, M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd., and claimed exempted LTCG in respect of the same, the Ld.AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 378/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

price of the scrips to facilitate several persons to book artificial Long term capital gains and claiming the same as exempt income. As the assessee had invested in shares of one such script namely, M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd., and claimed exempted LTCG in respect of the same, the Ld.AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija

penny stock company. Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 2.2. It has been submitted that Ld.AO concluded the assessment by holding that the transaction in the share price of alleged companies were not owing to commercial principles and market factors and that assessee resorted to a preconceived scheme to procure long term capital gains

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija

penny stock company. Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 2.2. It has been submitted that Ld.AO concluded the assessment by holding that the transaction in the share price of alleged companies were not owing to commercial principles and market factors and that assessee resorted to a preconceived scheme to procure long term capital gains

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija

penny stock company. Page 6 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 2.2. It has been submitted that Ld.AO concluded the assessment by holding that the transaction in the share price of alleged companies were not owing to commercial principles and market factors and that assessee resorted to a preconceived scheme to procure long term capital gains

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 481/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.PFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 234ASection 68Section 69C

transfer of shares in M/s. PSIT Infrastructure & Services Limited (formerly known as Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd) of Rs. 32,49,47,192/-. 14. That the authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.98,80,997/- u/s 69C of the Act without adducing any evidence in support of the same. 15. That the authorities below erred in estimating 3% of sale

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 337/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

transferred in Hassan, the profit from the same is to be assessed under the head LTCG or short term capital gain. The CIT(A) held reversing the AO’s finding that the same should be assessed as LTCG. Consequently appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed the present

SNEHALATHA SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija

penny stock company. Page 3 of 11 2.2. It has been submitted that Ld.AO concluded the assessment by holding that the transaction in the share price of alleged companies were not owing to commercial principles and market factors and that assessee resorted to a preconceived scheme to procure long term capital gains by way of price difference in share transactions

SNEHALATHA SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1175/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri K R Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. 21. That the Authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.49,54,368/- as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C of the Act without adducing any evidence in support of the same. 22. That the Authorities below erred in estimating 3% of sale consideration of shares as the commission paid

SRI. SHAILESH HARAN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2632/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.2632(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Sri Shailesh Haran, No.47, S B Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore-560 004 Panno.Abypj6916D Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore Respondent

For Appellant: Smt Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 68

transferred to companies, who existed only on paper. According to the AO, the investigation also revealed that some companies were used as entry operators to provide entries of bogus LTCG. There is also reference to the fact that scrip M/S.NCL Research and Financial Services ltd has been suspended for trading by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

ITA 416/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT, LTU (D.R)

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(d)Section 77A

penny of tax. The Assessing Officer held that in such manner, the offer is nothing but a colourable instrument to transfer the accumulated profit without having tax impact in India in the hand of recipient. Hence the Assessing Officer proposed to treat the payment by the assessee to its holding company on account of buy back of shares as dividend