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.

45 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 172(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai239Delhi131Hyderabad72Chennai65Cochin61Chandigarh59Jaipur48Bangalore45Raipur19Surat14Ahmedabad12Nagpur10Indore10Agra8Kolkata7Varanasi5Lucknow4Rajkot4Cuttack3Pune2Jodhpur2Dehradun1Allahabad1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 153A44Section 13238Addition to Income36Section 143(3)23Section 4021Disallowance18Section 132(4)14Section 234A13Section 131

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

172 TAXMAN 74 (DELHI) the High Court of Delhi held as under:- “The Tribunal had, on those facts, rightly come to the conclusion that since the revenue had relied upon the statement of ‘M’, it should have been made available to the assessee with an opportunity of cross-examining him. That was not done by the Assessing Officer. It clearly

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

11
Survey u/s 133A11
Transfer Pricing9
Section 234B7

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1444/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2130/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1446/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1457/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1456/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1445/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2129/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1452/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This\nfact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent\nstatement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the\nexcel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale\nconsideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1458/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This\nfact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent\nstatement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the\nexcel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale\nconsideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1454/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This\nfact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent\nstatement recorded under Section 131 of the Act while explaining the\nexcel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale\nconsideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1459/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This\nfact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent\nstatement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the\nexcel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale\nconsideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

ITA 2131/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This\nfact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent\nstatement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the\nexcel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale\nconsideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1455/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: \nMs. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This\nfact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent\nstatement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the\nexcel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale\nconsideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This \nfact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent \nstatement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the \nexcel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale \nconsideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1443/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This \nfact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent \nstatement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the \nexcel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale \nconsideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1453/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This\nfact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent\nstatement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the\nexcel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale\nconsideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books