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.

2 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 33Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai34Delhi26Jaipur15Ahmedabad12Hyderabad8Pune8Bangalore8Telangana4Visakhapatnam3SC3Kolkata2Chandigarh2Karnataka2Chennai2Allahabad1Surat1Indore1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Section 80I2Section 80l2

SHRI HARI KRISHNA PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAMALPET vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 633/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 633/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010 )

For Appellant: Shri. A. Arjunaraj and Shri. AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT
Section 80ISection 80l

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (ii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall apply in the case of transfer, either in whole or in part, of machinery or plant previously used

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

price of the flats in the project at Rs.27,000/-, however, on verification it is found to be Rs.26,414/- ). To that extent, the sales disclosed were understated. Further, the appellant has paid an extra consideration of Rs.3,56,06,250/- to its holding company EID Parry on account of land cost u/s.40A(2)(b). Based on work order