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.

119 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai519Delhi253Chennai119Hyderabad109Jaipur100Cochin65Bangalore62Kolkata60Rajkot59Ahmedabad40Chandigarh33Raipur26Pune25Surat25Lucknow20Indore17Jodhpur14Visakhapatnam10Dehradun8Nagpur8Cuttack7Allahabad3Agra3Panaji2Amritsar2

Key Topics

Section 153A89Section 143(3)49Section 13249Addition to Income48Disallowance34Section 40A(3)24Section 250(6)17Section 132(4)14Section 263

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

Section 153 expires’. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31.10.2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also indicates the date by which the Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders

Showing 1–20 of 119 · Page 1 of 6

13
Depreciation10
Section 119
Natural Justice8

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 extended\nto sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the\n\nperiod of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment,\nreassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining\nperiod shall be extended to sixty days

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 72/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.72/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.35/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.87/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. International Seaport Dredging Dcit / Jcit(Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-2(2) बनाम 5Th Floor, Challam Towers, Chennai. Old No.62, New No.113, / Vs. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabci-2286-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A.Sasi Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: These Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Separate Orders Of Assessments Framed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasi Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

transfer pricing adjustment towards lease rental payments for AY 2013-14 and upheld the other adjustments and disallowances for AY 2013-14. 1. Further for the AY 2014-15, the DRP allowed the exclusion of certain comparable companies for computation of the upward adjustment made towards income received from deputation of personnel, while upholding the other adjustments made

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

transfers were made of goods and services of the eligible business as recorded in its accounts "does not correspond to the market values of such goods." The Proviso to Section 80- IA (8) further states: "that where, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the computation of the profits and gains of the eligible business in the manner hereinbefore specified

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

transfers were made of goods and services of the eligible business as recorded in its accounts "does not correspond to the market values of such goods." The Proviso to Section 80- IA (8) further states: "that where, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the computation of the profits and gains of the eligible business in the manner hereinbefore specified

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 219/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of\nthis order, making various additions on both substantive as well as\nprotective bases.\n4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred\nappeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).\nBy orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises\n(Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1663/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

transfers were made of goods and services of the eligible business as recorded in its accounts "does not correspond to the market values of such goods." The Proviso to Section 80-IA(8) further states: "that where, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the computation of the profits and gains of the eligible business in the manner hereinbefore specified

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

transfer pricing adjustments have been made under sub-section (3) of section 92CA of the Act, the Assessing Officer {AO) is required to forward a draft assessment order to the eligible assessee, if he proposed to make any variation in the :-12-: ITA. No:698/Chny/2024 income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. Such eligible

SELLAMUTHU KABILAN,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

ITA 3377/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of\nthis order, making various additions on both substantive as well as\nprotective bases.\n4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred\nappeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).\nBy orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises\n(Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE -3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. P.P. CONSTRUCTIONS, KARUR

ITA 2531/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of\nthis order, making various additions on both substantive as well as\nprotective bases.\n4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred\nappeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).\nBy orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises\n(Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed

P PALANISMAY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 211/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Section 292C uses\nthe words “it may be presumed” and the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. R.\nMetrani v. CIT 287 ITR 209 (SC) explained the concept of\npresumptions and expression "may be presumed" as under-\n==End of OCR for page 77==\n"22. A presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other\nknown or proved facts

PALANISAMY RAGHUPATHY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3374/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of this order, making various additions on both substantive as well as protective bases. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred appeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises (Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed

PALANISAMY RAGHYPATHY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3372/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

section 115BBE\nincreasing the rate of tax to 60% is not retrospectively\napplicable. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in S.M.I.L.E\nMicrofinance Limited v ACIT 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8416 (Pages\n248 – 259 of Case Law Book 1) has categorically held that the\nrate of 60 percent is to be imposed only for the transactions\nfrom 01.04.2017. The above order

P. PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 1121/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of this order, making various additions on both substantive as well as protective bases. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred appeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises (Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed

P.P. ENTERPRISES,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3382/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of this order, making various additions on both substantive as well as protective bases. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred appeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises (Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed

L KARUPPUSAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 224/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of this order, making various additions on both substantive as well as protective bases. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred appeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises (Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE -3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. P P ENTERPRISES, BENGALURU

ITA 2529/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Section 292C uses\nthe words “it may be presumed” and the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. R.\nMetrani v. CIT 287 ITR 209 (SC) explained the concept of\npresumptions and expression "may be presumed" as under-\n\n\"22. A presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other\nknown or proved facts. It is a rule

SELLAMUTHU KABILAN,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

ITA 3378/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of this order, making various additions on both substantive as well as protective bases. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred appeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises (Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed

P. PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, COIMBATORE

ITA 213/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of this order, making various additions on both substantive as well as protective bases. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred appeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises (Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 3392/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

144 of the Act, as detailed in paragraph 1 of this order, making various additions on both substantive as well as protective bases. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessees preferred appeals before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By orders dated 31.07.2024, except in the case of PP Enterprises (Oddanchatram) wherein the appellate order was passed