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.

122 results for “transfer pricing”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,445Delhi1,027Chennai301Bangalore209Ahmedabad186Hyderabad162Jaipur161Kolkata143Chandigarh122Pune84Indore81Rajkot74Cochin72Surat45Visakhapatnam35Raipur33Nagpur33Guwahati24Cuttack22Lucknow21Jodhpur21Dehradun15Amritsar14Panaji6Varanasi6Jabalpur5Agra2Allahabad1Ranchi1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 26379Section 143(3)37Addition to Income20Section 153A19Section 143(2)18Section 250(6)16Section 25315Section 142(1)14Section 132

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 - 1(3)(1), Delhi examined the documentation prescribed under Rule 10D and other details were called for and examined and passed order under section 92CA(3) dt. 31/07/2021 holding that in view of the functional and economic analysis of the assessee and comparables which have been examined, no adverse inference is drawn in respect of the Specified Domestic

Showing 1–20 of 122 · Page 1 of 7

13
Disallowance7
Transfer Pricing7
Deduction6

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 - 1(3)(1), Delhi examined the documentation prescribed under Rule 10D and other details were called for and examined and passed order under section 92CA(3) dt. 31/07/2021 holding that in view of the functional and economic analysis of the assessee and comparables which have been examined, no adverse inference is drawn in respect of the Specified Domestic

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)

set of 20 companies engaged in IT enabled services were considered by the TPO, holding them to be comparable to the assessee. To arrive at the arm’s length price, the net margin, i.e., the Operating Profit / Operating Cost (OP/OC) of these 20 companies, as earned during the regular course of their business, was considered

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

loss was resulted to the revenue, no penalty ids.271AA is warranted on it. The penalty levied b y the Ld. Assessing Officer deserved to be deleted.” 3.1 The submissions so filed were considered but not found acceptable to the Ld. CIT(A) and levy of penalty under section 271AA was upheld. As per the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee company

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP PROTECTION LTD.,MOHALI vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 316/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 316/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd. Addl. Cit बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road, Range-1 Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Chandigarh Vs. District Sas Nagar Mohali-140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anil Khanna (Ca). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Khanna (CA). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment on Corporate Guarantee; (iv) Set-off of brought forward losses. These grounds are adjudicated as under

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

setting off the same with future capital gains. In view of the above facts and discussion, it was held by the ld CIT(A) that disallowance of capital loss of Rs. 25,75,000/- made by the AO was justified and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 6. Against the said findings and directions

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1328/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate and Ms. Sumisha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 37(1)

Transfer Pricing covers this receipt. Since, the basic premise of the assessee that the said expenses are laid out and subsequently reimbursed on the basis of the 'Master Services Agreement' is found to be false, the claim of the assessee of the expenditure on foreign travel also becomes void. v) It needs to be reiterated that foreign travel expense claimed

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 618/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263Section 68

transfer pricing adjustment, it is not permissible to generalise the matter and hold that there was lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer rendering the assessment order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In our considered view, the learned PCIT is required to specifically identify the transaction which, in his opinion, falls within the scope

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 583/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 843/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: \nShri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263

loss on interest rate swap\nand same was replied by assessee, it was not a case where no\nenquiry whatsoever had been conducted by Assessing Officer with\nrespect to claims under consideration and, thus, revision order\npassed under section263 was not sustainable\"\n\nReliance was also placed on judgement of ITAT Chandigarh in case\nof Pawan Kumar Vs. ITO reported

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assesse an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1448/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

price of land of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- and taking the sale consideration of land at Rs. 62,70,000/- + 10,45,000/-). In fact this cash was available with the assessee only out of the sale proceeds of 54 Bigha 13 Biswa & 4 Biswasi and another piece of land of land for Rs.2

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

price of land of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- and taking the sale consideration of land at Rs. 62,70,000/- + 10,45,000/-). In fact this cash was available with the assessee only out of the sale proceeds of 54 Bigha 13 Biswa & 4 Biswasi and another piece of land of land for Rs.2

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

price of land of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- and taking the sale consideration of land at Rs. 62,70,000/- + 10,45,000/-). In fact this cash was available with the assessee only out of the sale proceeds of 54 Bigha 13 Biswa & 4 Biswasi and another piece of land of land for Rs.2

AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH

ITA 212/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

setting aside the order of the AO and directing assessment de-novo, on the grounds that Large share premium received during the year, without appreciating the fact that two out of three investors are foreign investors and such shares are issued above the fair value as required under foreign exchange laws of the country. The Ld. AO has asked

M/S AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 171/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

setting aside the order of the AO and directing assessment de-novo, on the grounds that Large share premium received during the year, without appreciating the fact that two out of three investors are foreign investors and such shares are issued above the fair value as required under foreign exchange laws of the country. The Ld. AO has asked

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 402/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assesse an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 403/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assesse an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 362/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 148Section 250(6)Section 5(20)Section 5(21)Section 69CSection 7

transfer pricing, TDS matter, excise assessment, VAT assessment and also with regard to notices issued by the relevant Government Authority for relevant assessment years under various provisions of the Applicable Law including Income Tax Act or indirect tax laws, the relevant Government A.Y. 2011-12 14 Authorities make any further assessment with respect to resolution of losses or unabsorbed depreciation