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.

54 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi540Mumbai130Karnataka74Kolkata57Calcutta54Chennai33Telangana24Jaipur22Bangalore19Ahmedabad12SC11Dehradun10Surat7Nagpur7Pune6Lucknow5Hyderabad5Amritsar4Indore4Chandigarh3Kerala3Allahabad3Orissa2Cochin2Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Jodhpur1Rajasthan1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 260A22Section 15411Section 143(3)9Section 409Addition to Income9Transfer Pricing7Section 144C6Section 92B5Section 14A5Section 195

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LTD

In the result, these appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/217/2024HC Calcutta09 Jul 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 260ASection 80Section 80ASection 92BSection 92F

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA? b) WHETHER in facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating the finding of the TPO that the assessee's generating unit cannot as such

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LTD

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

5
Disallowance5
Comparables/TP5

In the result, these appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/215/2024HC Calcutta09 Jul 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 260ASection 80Section 80ASection 92BSection 92F

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA? b) WHETHER in facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating the finding of the TPO that the assessee's generating unit cannot as such

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LTD

In the result, these appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/216/2024HC Calcutta09 Jul 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 260ASection 80Section 80ASection 92BSection 92F

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA? b) WHETHER in facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating the finding of the TPO that the assessee's generating unit cannot as such

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S DHUNSERI VENTURES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

ITA/25/2024HC Calcutta20 Aug 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 20Th August, 2025. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhorea, Adv. …For Appellant.

Section 1Section 2Section 2(8)Section 260ASection 42Section 9

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA? b) WHETHER in facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating the finding of the TPO that the assessee's generating unit cannot as such

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

ITAT/39/2020HC Calcutta17 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 194HSection 195Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 40Section 50BSection 9(1)

260A of the Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the composite order dated 5th April, 2017 passed 2 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.1557/Kol/2011 and ITA No.1431/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

ITAT/89/2025HC Calcutta21 Jul 2025

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

For Appellant: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate
Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 40a

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated May 10, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1068/Kol/2017 & 1222/Kol/2017, both relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. Two appeals have been filed before the learned Tribunal – one by the assessee and the other

RAJEEV BISWAS vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

ITA/161/2018HC Calcutta22 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.1.2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Miscellaneous Application No. 205/Kol/2017 Affirming The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Passed In Income Tax Appeal No. 1176/Kol/2017 By Which The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –22 Kolkata, [Cit(A)] Dated 15Th March, 2017 Was Affirmed, Which Order Of The [Cit(A)] Arose Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Namely Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 2 (1), Kolkata Dated 28Th January, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 3Rd December, 2018 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether The Subject Income Could Be Taken To Have Accrued In India Only For The Reason That It Was Shown In The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee ?

Section 10(6)(viii)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 260A

Transfer Pricing, Kolkata & Ors. in W.P. No. 369 of 2014. The learned Tribunal could not have ignored the said decision and the same having been ignored that would be error which is apparent on the face of the record and the Tribunal ought to have exercised his power when an application was filed by the assessee under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I KOLKATA vs. M/S GKW LTD.

ITAT/161/2018HC Calcutta13 Dec 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.1.2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Miscellaneous Application No. 205/Kol/2017 Affirming The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Passed In Income Tax Appeal No. 1176/Kol/2017 By Which The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –22 Kolkata, [Cit(A)] Dated 15Th March, 2017 Was Affirmed, Which Order Of The [Cit(A)] Arose Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Namely Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 2 (1), Kolkata Dated 28Th January, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 3Rd December, 2018 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether The Subject Income Could Be Taken To Have Accrued In India Only For The Reason That It Was Shown In The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee ?

Section 10(6)(viii)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 260A

Transfer Pricing, Kolkata & Ors. in W.P. No. 369 of 2014. The learned Tribunal could not have ignored the said decision and the same having been ignored that would be error which is apparent on the face of the record and the Tribunal ought to have exercised his power when an application was filed by the assessee under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION AND TRANSFER PRICING vs. SIGNIFY HOLDING B V

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/102/2025HC Calcutta06 May 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 6Th May, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Mr. Anindya Kanan, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. …For Appellant

Section 13Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 260A

TRANSFER PRICING), KOLKATA VS. SIGNIFY HOLDING B.V. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) DATE: 6TH MAY, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Mr. Anindya Kanan, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. …for Appellant Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …for respondent The Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 KOLKATA vs. M/S LANDIS GYR

In the result, the substantial questions of law (i)

ITAT/10/2021HC Calcutta03 Apr 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated October 17, 2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.524/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 260ASection 32Section 92C

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated October 17, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.524/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: 2 (i) Whether the Learned Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

ITAT/67/2022HC Calcutta20 Dec 2022

Bench: :

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 68Section 80ISection 92B

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 28th October, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata in ITA Nos.1650 & 1864/Kol/2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

ITAT/338/2016HC Calcutta05 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 5Section 50CSection 9

transfer of title to the goods outside India and hence there is no income chargeable to tax in India and therefore the provisions of Section 195 of the Act are not attracted. It was also contended that such advances to suppliers have also not been charged to Profit and loss Account for the relevant assessment year. 4. The Assessing Officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. M/S JJ EXPORTS PVT. LTD

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the company has been wound up and

ITAT/54/2018HC Calcutta05 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 5, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Appellant Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhertha Das, Adv. …For Respondent Ga/1/2018(Ga/554/2018) The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant & Ms. Swapna Das & Mr. Siddhertha Das, Learned Advocates For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 127 Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Application & We Find Sufficient Cause Has Not Been Shown To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

Section 260ASection 92C

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated 12th May, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 201/Kol./2012 for the assessment years 2007-08. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : i) Whether on the facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY

ITAT/162/2021HC Calcutta08 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 54ESection 54F

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed challenging the order dated 25th November, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) in ITA No.1915/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2016-17. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law: 2 (i) Whether on the facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX, KOLKATA vs. M/S SANDERSON AND MORGANS

ITA/155/2011HC Calcutta07 Feb 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

260A of the Act, 1961. Submission(s) : 8. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the provisions of Section 145 of the Act, 1961 and submits that the respondent assessee should 4 have first included the aforesaid differential amount of Rs.3,74,85,859/- in the books and thereafter should have claimed expenses. In other words, the entire receipts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, KOLKATA vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED

ITAT/155/2011HC Calcutta06 Jun 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

260A of the Act, 1961. Submission(s) : 8. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the provisions of Section 145 of the Act, 1961 and submits that the respondent assessee should 4 have first included the aforesaid differential amount of Rs.3,74,85,859/- in the books and thereafter should have claimed expenses. In other words, the entire receipts

BALGOPAL MERCHANTS PVT LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/232/2023HC Calcutta13 May 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated May 04, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata in Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 456/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2012-2013. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- (i) Whether the Tribunal can examine facts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MADANLAL LIMITED

ITA/51/2013HC Calcutta28 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 28Th July, 2025. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant.

Section 260ASection 28Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73Section 73(4)

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/1033/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BST INFRATECH LTD

In the result the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned

ITAT/67/2024HC Calcutta23 Apr 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA NO. 2655/Kol/2019 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The revenue has raised following substantial questions of law for consideration: A) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA vs. PKS HOLDINGS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the question nos

ITAT/62/2017HC Calcutta03 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 1st June, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 1677/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. The revenue has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration :- i) Whether on the facts