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.

160 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 92(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,810Mumbai1,778Bangalore711Karnataka334Chennai326Ahmedabad314Kolkata280Hyderabad210Pune184Jaipur184Chandigarh160Cochin119Indore91Rajkot57Calcutta56Visakhapatnam51Surat43Lucknow33Nagpur27SC25Telangana25Guwahati24Cuttack24Amritsar23Raipur22Dehradun7Agra7Panaji5Jodhpur4Rajasthan4Allahabad3Jabalpur2Kerala2Ranchi2Orissa1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 26334Section 43C28Section 13(3)24Section 153A23Section 13223Addition to Income20Section 80I18Section 143(3)15Section 250(6)

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 u/s 92CA(3) should not be revised for the reasons stated herein above. 9. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered but not found acceptable to the Ld. PCIT and the relevant findings of the ld PCIT read as under: “4. The submissions of the assessee have carefully been considered with reference to the facts

Showing 1–20 of 160 · Page 1 of 8

...
12
Reassessment9
Reopening of Assessment9
Exemption9

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 u/s 92CA(3) should not be revised for the reasons stated herein above. 9. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered but not found acceptable to the Ld. PCIT and the relevant findings of the ld PCIT read as under: “4. The submissions of the assessee have carefully been considered with reference to the facts

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

section 92 to 92F of the I.T. Act, any income arising from an international transaction or specified domestic transactions between two or more associated enterprises is to be computed having regard to the arms-length price. Instruction No. 3 was issued on 20.05.2003 to provide guidance to the TPO and the AO to operationalise_the insfer pricing provisions

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

3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land and in denying the deduction under section 54B of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had sold land for consideration

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

3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land and in denying the deduction under section 54B of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had sold land for consideration

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

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 12,18,99,100/- which was processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, the matter was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. Further during the course of assessment proceeding

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 476/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

92[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 480/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

92[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 479/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

92[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 475/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

92[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 473/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

92[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 474/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

92[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 478/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

92[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 477/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

92[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; [(iii) an order

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

92[or functions of an Assessing the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section

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

92[or functions of an Assessing the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section

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

92[or functions of an Assessing the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section

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

92[or functions of an Assessing the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

transferred to the members or to these people or concerns and they had procured bogus commission income. No such document has been brought to my notice by the AO or Survey Report that establishes trail of transfer of cash clandestinely to the members of the society. Hence, if there is bogus commission raised by the members of the society, Ld.AO

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

transferred to the members or to these people or concerns and they had procured bogus commission income. No such document has been brought to my notice by the AO or Survey Report that establishes trail of transfer of cash clandestinely to the members of the society. Hence, if there is bogus commission raised by the members of the society, Ld.AO