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.

8 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka290Pune77Mumbai75Delhi63Hyderabad42Bangalore32Raipur17Kolkata14Jaipur10Chennai8SC7Surat5Telangana3Rajkot2Ahmedabad2Lucknow1Chandigarh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 12A16Section 2(47)(v)6Addition to Income6Section 2(15)4Disallowance4Section 143(1)3Deduction3Section 143(3)2Section 2502

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

price and market value on conversion will be offered as business profits. Looking at the situation independently, one can say that the provision of section 45(2) could be relevant and appropriate. The fact of entering into agreements for development of land through such arrangements reflects that the character of holding of land changes factually. What was held as capital

Section 143(2)2
Section 92C2
Capital Gains2

THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for ay 2005-06 & 2006-07

ITA 286/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 35DSection 40

5A cane price the CIT(A) held that there was no addition made on this account . Since, the AO himself has mentioned that the appellant can makea claim in assessment year 2003-04, the CIT(A) held that any adjudication on the assessee’s grounds are only academic in nature and hence, treated them as dismissed, upheld the disallowances; made

THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for ay 2005-06 & 2006-07

ITA 382/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 35DSection 40

5A cane price the CIT(A) held that there was no addition made on this account . Since, the AO himself has mentioned that the appellant can makea claim in assessment year 2003-04, the CIT(A) held that any adjudication on the assessee’s grounds are only academic in nature and hence, treated them as dismissed, upheld the disallowances; made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

transfer pricing proceedings, the assessee has submitted that Letter of Comfort is a facility to avail credit by Parry America Inc. which is a subsidiary of the assessee company. Therefore, the assessee contented before the TPO that, the above facility is not a guarantee and the adjustment towards guarantee commission would not arise with reference to Section

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

transfer pricing proceedings, the assessee has submitted that Letter of Comfort is a facility to avail credit by Parry America Inc. which is a subsidiary of the assessee company. Therefore, the assessee contented before the TPO that, the above facility is not a guarantee and the adjustment towards guarantee commission would not arise with reference to Section

PENUPETRUNI CHINNA RAO,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 401/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C(1)Section 54Section 54B

price of builder) Rs.1,51,13,700 Cash outflow for 1682 sqft included in built up-area of 6300 sq.ft Rs.2,95,55,000 Cost of service tax paid (for 9 flats) Rs. 53,21,820 Alteration and other cost paid (for 9 flats) Rs. 21,02,660 Deduction u/s.54 Rs. 5,20,71,180 The assessee submitted that

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3006/CHNY/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 80G(5)(vi)

5A, 5th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [PAN:AACCI5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M. Rajan, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3007/CHNY/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 80G(5)(vi)

5A, 5th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [PAN:AACCI5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M. Rajan, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश