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.

341 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 143(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,868Delhi1,506Hyderabad386Chennai341Bangalore326Ahmedabad271Jaipur231Kolkata198Chandigarh166Pune139Indore102Cochin101Rajkot100Surat84Visakhapatnam66Lucknow42Raipur41Nagpur38Dehradun25Cuttack23Guwahati22Amritsar22Agra21Jodhpur20Patna9Varanasi7Panaji7Jabalpur4Allahabad4Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)85Addition to Income54Disallowance42Section 13227Section 26326Section 153A22Section 14A22Deduction18Natural Justice17Depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

ITA 3315/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)Section 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

price whichever is lower. The appellant\ncontended that the stand of the AO is not correct also the statement recorded\nduring the survey has no evidentiary value. The appellant also submitted that\nthis component of stock difference does not represent the value of any\nexcess quantity of stock found during the course of survey in relation to the\nstock register

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

Showing 1–20 of 341 · Page 1 of 18

...
16
Section 8015
Section 4015

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

ITA 3316/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)Section 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

price whichever is lower. The appellant\ncontended that the stand of the AO is not correct also the statement recorded\nduring the survey has no evidentiary value. The appellant also submitted that\nthis component of stock difference does not represent the value of any\nexcess quantity of stock found during the course of survey in relation to the\nstock register

PHILIPS FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. PCIT-1, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 640/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

143(3)", "144B", "92CA", "92D(3)", "129", "139(1)", "92", "92A", "92F", "119" ], "issues": "Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had the valid jurisdiction to pass the revisionary order under Section 263, considering the administrative control over the Transfer Pricing

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1247/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 153(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer is\nreceived by him.]\n(6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) 27[, (1A)] and (2) shall apply to the following\nclasses of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the\nprovisions of 28[sub-sections (3), (5) and (5A)], be completed-\n(i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 800/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14
Section 56(1)

transfer pricing orders wherein downward adjustments were made to the price paid for the equipment imported by the AE. It is submitted that the Assessee had filed an appeal (IT(TP) A No. 44/Chny/2023) to this honʼble Tribunal against the appellate order for Assessment Year 2013-14 (arising from the assessment under Section 143(3

SUNTEC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 3252/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm’s length price of international transaction undertaken by the assessee with its AE. The TPO passed an order u/s.92CA of the Act on 23.10.2023 wherein, he proposed downward adjustment of Rs.1,42,01,590/- being the arm’s length price of the salary paid to global sales personnel. The reasoning

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1402/CHNY/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

price for the valuation of goodwill. Likewise, he further noted that the assessing authority has not examined the justification of the consideration for transfer of IPR and directed the Assessing Officer to re- examine the issue. 3.8 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 143(3

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

143(3)", "Section 92CA(3)", "Section 144C", "Section 43(1)", "Section 43(6)", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 32(1)(ii)", "Section 92CA(3)", "Section 92C(3)" ], "issues": "1. Whether depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is allowable.\n2. Whether transfer pricing

NETHERLANDS OPERATING COMPANY B.V.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)(b)Section 147Section 148

section 143(2) would vitiate the assessment, answering the issue in the affirmative. 22. CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2003 elucidates upon and explains the provisions relating to Transfer Pricing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 285/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

transfer of funds through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the Appellant from such funds by withdrawing the same from the bank. Appellant from such funds by withdrawing the same from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 286/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

transfer of funds through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the Appellant from such funds by withdrawing the same from the bank. Appellant from such funds by withdrawing the same from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 283/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

transfer of funds through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the Appellant from such funds by withdrawing the same from the bank. Appellant from such funds by withdrawing the same from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 287/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

transfer of funds through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the through bank from the group entity and incurring of expenditure by the Appellant from such funds by withdrawing the same from the bank. Appellant from such funds by withdrawing the same from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 355/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13
Section 40A(3)

Transfer Pricing Officer is extended to sixty days in accordance\nwith the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of\nlimitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of\nassessment or reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty\ndays, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the\naforesaid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

ITA 799/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri. A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: \nShri. V. Ravichandran, CA
Section 56(1)

transfer pricing\nreport.\nTwo crucial facts must be noted:\n1. The assessment for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15\nwere originally concluded under Section 143(3

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1956/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied,\nmay allow an additional period of six months to give\neffect to the order:\nProvided further that where an order under section 250\nor section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section\n263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by\nway of submission of any document

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1010/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1010/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eaton Power Quality Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Pondicherry Circle, Puducherry 605 111, Pondicherry. Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 35/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Eaton Power Quality Private The Assessing Officer, Limited, V. National E-Assessment Centre, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Delhi. Puducherry 605 111, Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate : Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

143(3) read with sections 144C(13) and 1448 of the Act is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and thus, liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated November 1, 2019 passed by the TPO under section 92CA(3) of the Act is barred

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

ITA 1955/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied,\nmay allow an additional period of six months to give\neffect to the order:\nProvided further that where an order under section 250\nor section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section\n263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by\nway of submission of any document

SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NCC 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 1505/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Order dated 01.11.2019 and Final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act dated 28.02.2020 is barred by limitation under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CHENNAI vs. SAINT - GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 1672/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Order dated 01.11.2019 and Final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act dated 28.02.2020 is barred by limitation under section