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.

292 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 14clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,709Mumbai4,298Bangalore1,783Chennai829Kolkata781Ahmedabad697Hyderabad665Pune645Karnataka492Jaipur420Chandigarh292Surat291Indore258Cochin216Rajkot118Visakhapatnam108SC108Cuttack81Telangana76Calcutta69Nagpur67Raipur65Lucknow61Amritsar43Jodhpur36Agra36Guwahati33Dehradun31A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN15Varanasi12Panaji11Ranchi11Jabalpur10Rajasthan10Allahabad9Patna9Kerala8Orissa6Punjab & Haryana2S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)48Addition to Income47Section 153A36Section 26334Section 143(2)32Section 69A28Section 14825Section 13218Section 250(6)

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer has already examined the records and accepted the returned income. The copy of the order passed by TPO is attached as per Annexure-D and Reply submitted before TPO and A.O. along with annexures is enclosed as per Annexure-E for your honors kind perusal. "In the annexed reply submitted to TPO dated 17.11.2020- Annexure

Showing 1–20 of 292 · Page 1 of 15

...
18
Penalty13
Deduction9
Unexplained Investment8

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer has already examined the records and accepted the returned income. The copy of the order passed by TPO is attached as per Annexure-D and Reply submitted before TPO and A.O. along with annexures is enclosed as per Annexure-E for your honors kind perusal. "In the annexed reply submitted to TPO dated 17.11.2020- Annexure

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 54 of Transfer Property Act, it is clear that when the price is partly paid and partly promised, the immovable property is deemed to have been transferred on execution and registration of Sale Deed if the possession of property has been given to the buyer. The assessee’s claim that the possession of the property remained with the seller

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 54 of Transfer Property Act, it is clear that when the price is partly paid and partly promised, the immovable property is deemed to have been transferred on execution and registration of Sale Deed if the possession of property has been given to the buyer. The assessee’s claim that the possession of the property remained with the seller

SARASWATI AGRO CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the transfer pricing adjustment so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) amounting to Rs 89,22,420/- is hereby set-aside and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 165/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Gupta, C.A and Shri Akshun Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer the aggregate value of specified domestic transactions has been taken from the Form 3CEB filed by the appellant. Perusal of Form 3CEB, prescribed under Rule 10E, states as "Report from an accountant to be furnished under section 92E relating to International Transaction(s) and Specified domestic transaction(s). The particulars of the above transaction(s) required

M/S JSK INTERNATIONAL,BADDI vs. PR. CIT, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 643/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri. Satish AgarwalFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

transfer pricing provisions pertaining to specified domestic transactions are under consideration of the CBDT. Till such time the guidance pertaining to specified domestic transactions is not issued, paragraph 3.5 of this Instruction shall apply to the effect that where a case has been selected for scrutiny on non-TP parameters and the case also involves specified domestic transactions with

M/S NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271Section 80

section 92C of the Act to the TPO for determining the arms length price in respect of specific domestic transaction undertaken by the assessee. The TPO after examining the transfer pricing adjustment and analyzing the specific domestic transaction with associated enterprises, proceeded to bench mark the power from eligible unit to non eligible unit specifically supply of electricity and steam

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 900/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

14. Per contra the Revenue argued that the assessee originally filed return as resident and therefore AO proceeded accordingly; that Section 144C was intended for transfer-pricing

M/S OM CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

14 ITA 483/Chd/2022 1. That order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala is against law and facts on the file in as much he has failed to show as to how the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is erroneous in as much as prejudicial

M/S SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 481/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

14 ITA 483/Chd/2022 1. That order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala is against law and facts on the file in as much he has failed to show as to how the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is erroneous in as much as prejudicial

M/S OMKAR ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

14 ITA 483/Chd/2022 1. That order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala is against law and facts on the file in as much he has failed to show as to how the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is erroneous in as much as prejudicial

M/S MAA BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 483/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

14 ITA 483/Chd/2022 1. That order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala is against law and facts on the file in as much he has failed to show as to how the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is erroneous in as much as prejudicial

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1270/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Khanna, Add. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

14,00,000 * 497/1024 Rs. 22,95,243/- Rs. 22,95,243/- Deduction u/s 54 Rs. 91,04,757/- Investment in house property u/s 54 = Rs. 96,50,000/- Long Term Capital Gain = Nil. “ That the AO took the value of the plots at Rs.2.50 crores,as per section 50C of the Act,as against 1.14 crs shown

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD,,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-5(1),(NEAC), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 129/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Reuben Mathew Jacob, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)

Transfer Pricing Study was illegally disregarded and ignored. Further, though the ld. DRP initially upheld the CUP in principle, it upheld the CPM, as applied by the TPO, and it went on to ultimately make the TNMM the basis for the adjustment to determine the arm’s length price of the transaction. It also has rightly been called in question

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

14-07-2022 | 104 | 104 | 261 | Resident\n\nThus, the assessee's non-resident status under section 6 of the Act stands\nundisputed and accepted by all revenue authorities including the CIT(A) and\nthe BMA authority.\n12.\nThe assessee in written submissions has contended that once she is\naccepted as a non-resident, she automatically falls in the definition

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

14-07-2022 | 104 | 104 | 261 | Resident |\n\nThus, the assessee's non-resident status under section 6 of the Act stands\nundisputed and accepted by all revenue authorities including the CIT(A) and\nthe BMA authority.\n\n12.\nThe assessee in written submissions has contended that once she is\naccepted as a non-resident, she automatically falls

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 50C

14. Considering the language of sub section (2) of Section 12B of the 1922 Act, we are of the opinion that the judgment applies to Section 48 of the 1961 Act. The language of sub section (2) in this regard is 'similar to the language of the opening part of Section 48 of the Act. 15. The judgment undoubtedly holds

M/S YAMUNA POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,JAGADHRI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1229/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 80ISection 92C

Transfer Pricing documentation which contained the functional and economic analysis of the assessee and the comparables and no adverse inference was drawn in respect of International and Specified Domestic Transactions so undertaken by the assessee in terms of his order passed under section 92CA(3) dt. 28/09/2017. At the same time, the TPO in his order has stated that

M/S BLUE COAST INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT P. LTD.,SOLAN vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

In the result the appeal of the assessee is, hereby allowed and

ITA 652/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 652/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Development P. Ltd., 7, Income Tax, Circle, बनाम Shopping Complex, Sector-1, Parwanoo Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, H.P.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT-DR
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

transfer of capital assets. As per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act 1961, capital asset has been defined as "Capital asset means property of any kind held by an assessee whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include- ..........................(iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate- (a) in any area which

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

14. Ld. AR also submitted that the collector rate is always fixed as minimum rate in order to collect stamp duty and FMV cannot be compared with collector rate.Ld. AR submitted that the FMV of construction of house depends upon the quality of construction and collector rate cannot applied blankly on all type of construction and your honour shall appreciate