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.

24 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 168clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi413Mumbai350Karnataka248Bangalore154Pune88Ahmedabad79Chennai59Jaipur53Calcutta51Hyderabad48Indore42Kolkata32Chandigarh24Raipur20Guwahati16Cochin13Lucknow13Rajkot12Amritsar11Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam8SC7Surat6Telangana5Rajasthan3Orissa2Nagpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 153A34Section 13226Addition to Income19Section 250(6)15Section 143(2)9Section 132(1)9Section 153A(1)9Section 132A9Reassessment

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)

price with low level of construction which cannot be compared with residential house on independent plot in posh area. 15. The Ld. AR further submitted that PCIT has placed reliance on gift deed dated 8/10/2009 executed in favour of the assessee by his father. Stamp duty is charged on minimum collector for stamp duty purposes and it cannot reflect

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

9
Reopening of Assessment9
Section 69C8
Natural Justice6

SH. RAJINDER SINGH BEDI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

transfer of such house. Section 55(2)(b) allows an option to the assessee to adopt the Fair Market Value of the house property as on 01.04.2001 as the cost of acquisition wherein such an asset becomes the property of the assessee or of the previous owner before first day of April,2001. There is no dispute that in principle

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 715/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

168,26,80,893/- (amount of opening balance pertaining to Smt. Arti Singhal and Shri Sanjay Singhal in the seized Annexures) and balance amount of Rs. 70,85,09,887/- is treated as undisclosed income of the applicant company. As the said income of Rs. 70,85,09,88 7/- has been declared in the hands of Shri Sanjay Singhal

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 709/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

168,26,80,893/- (amount of opening balance pertaining to Smt. Arti Singhal and Shri Sanjay Singhal in the seized Annexures) and balance amount of Rs. 70,85,09,887/- is treated as undisclosed income of the applicant company. As the said income of Rs. 70,85,09,88 7/- has been declared in the hands of Shri Sanjay Singhal

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 707/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

168,26,80,893/- (amount of opening balance pertaining to Smt. Arti Singhal and Shri Sanjay Singhal in the seized Annexures) and balance amount of Rs. 70,85,09,887/- is treated as undisclosed income of the applicant company. As the said income of Rs. 70,85,09,88 7/- has been declared in the hands of Shri Sanjay Singhal

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 713/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

168,26,80,893/- (amount of opening balance pertaining to Smt. Arti Singhal and Shri Sanjay Singhal in the seized Annexures) and balance amount of Rs. 70,85,09,887/- is treated as undisclosed income of the applicant company. As the said income of Rs. 70,85,09,88 7/- has been declared in the hands of Shri Sanjay Singhal

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 712/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

168,26,80,893/- (amount of opening balance pertaining to Smt. Arti Singhal and Shri Sanjay Singhal in the seized Annexures) and balance amount of Rs. 70,85,09,887/- is treated as undisclosed income of the applicant company. As the said income of Rs. 70,85,09,88 7/- has been declared in the hands of Shri Sanjay Singhal

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 706/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

168,26,80,893/- (amount of opening balance pertaining to Smt. Arti Singhal and Shri Sanjay Singhal in the seized Annexures) and balance amount of Rs. 70,85,09,887/- is treated as undisclosed income of the applicant company. As the said income of Rs. 70,85,09,88 7/- has been declared in the hands of Shri Sanjay Singhal

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 710/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

168 138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 717/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

168 138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 718/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

168 138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 719/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

168 138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 705/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

168 138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 714/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

168 138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 708/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

168 138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 716/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

168 138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 711/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

168 138,686,123 678,507,515 1,705,146,806 Aniket Singal A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Particulars A.Y. 2011- 12 - 466,845,231 1,629,052,628 Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged 1,162,207,39 bogus LTCG) 29,954,940. 103,622,995 7 73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

168 and 169. There were certain notings on the backside of these cancelled booking receipts. It was submitted that the assessee firm had sold more than 50 plots during the year in question and the selling price was in the range of Rs. 1200 to 1500 p. sq. yard. However by illogically reading the contents written at the backside

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

168 and 169. There were certain notings on the backside of these cancelled booking receipts. It was submitted that the assessee firm had sold more than 50 plots during the year in question and the selling price was in the range of Rs. 1200 to 1500 p. sq. yard. However by illogically reading the contents written at the backside

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

ITA 61/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80I

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section