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.

27 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 801clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai280Delhi218Karnataka181Hyderabad73Kolkata72Ahmedabad68Bangalore59Jaipur59Calcutta37Chennai27Pune27Guwahati16Nagpur16Visakhapatnam14Cuttack12Jodhpur11Rajkot11Indore10Surat7Chandigarh7Lucknow6Varanasi5Agra4Telangana3Dehradun3Jabalpur2Amritsar2SC1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)20Section 26318Natural Justice12Addition to Income12Exemption11Disallowance10Limitation/Time-bar10Rectification u/s 15410Section 153A

HARLAND CLARKE HOLDING SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(2), CHENN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 113/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.V.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vara,CIT,D.R

sections 234B & 234C of the Act and Ground No.15 was against the initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds Nos.14 & 15 were not argued by ld.A.R. Consequently, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. In regard to the transfer pricing issues, it was submitted by ld.A.R that the assessee has three lines of business

MITSUBA SICAL INDIA PVT. LIMITED,GUMMIDIPOONDI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 400/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 1327
Survey u/s 133A6
Section 1335
03 May 2018
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.400/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. Mitsuba Sical India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Previously Mitsuba Sical (India Corporate Circle 4(1) Ltd) Chennai. No.8,Sipcot Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi 601 201. [Pan Aaccm 4446M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan and ShriFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 144C

transfer pricing documentation based on detailed economic analysis. 13.The learned TPO/ AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and in facts by including/ excluding companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria. Others 14.The learned TPO/ AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and facts, while computing the ALP of an international transaction ought to have eliminated

TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1340/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

transfer of asset for the purpose of capital gain. Hence, the claim of depreciation on the assets acquired under the scheme of amalgamation is restricted only to the extent if such amalgamation has not taken place. The Assessing Officer made a reference to 5th proviso to Section 32 in para as under: As highlighted above, the company paid Rs.180.52 Crores

BRAHMAR CELLULOSE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 189/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.189/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Brahmar Cellulose Products Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Ameen Manors, S1 & S2, Income Tax, Second Floor, B Block, No. 138, Corporate Circle 1(2), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aadcb3888M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is invalid, thus, ground Nos. 1 & 2 as raised by the assessee are dismissed. 5. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made on account of difference between the sale price and market value of the factory building

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TVS INVESTMENTS LRD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

Section 48 of IT Act provides for mode of computation of capital gains. The starting point of computation is the full value of consideration received or accruing. What in fact never accrued or was never received cannot be computed as capital gains u/s 48. In the case of KP Vargheese vs ITO Ernakulam 131 ITR 597, the Supreme Court

SMT. SUDHA EASHWAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2342/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Smt. Sudha Eashwar, The Income Tax Officer No.23A, P.T.Rajan Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-14(3) K.K.Nagar, Chennai Chennai-600 078. [Pan: Alxps 0601 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman
Section 143(3)

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) as well notices u/s 142(1) of the 1961 Act were duly issued by AO and served on assessee. During the course of aforesaid scrutiny proceedings conducted by AO, it was observed by AO that assessee has claimed an exempt income to the tune

SOHANRAJ UTTAMCHAND ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Dass, CITFor Respondent: 21.12.2017
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

transferred to the assessee’s account subsequently. It was also observed that the unexplained funds were routed through layering of accounts which was finally deposited in the assessee’s bank account. It was also observed that the relationship managers in most of the banks in order to achieve their target of opening new accounts encourage such activities without following

MTANDT RENTALS LIMITED,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2410/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Mtandt Rentals Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.62/2B, New No.99, Old No.144, Corporate Ward 4(3) Padur Village, Chennai. Poonamallee Taluk. Tiruvallur - 602 105. [Pan Aagcm 2269J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandiyan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)

801/- claimed on goodwill. :- 2 -: 2. Facts apropos are that one M/s.Mtandt Ltd, through a scheme of demerger approved by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on 19th October, 2012 with effective date 1st January, 2012, had hived off one of its division engaged in rental of equipment, to the assessee company. M/s.Mtandt Ltd had three segments of business, depicted hereunder

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. S R BUILDERS CHENNAI LLP, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2891/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2891/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

801 GRT Jewellers - 63.37% 2,70,02,716 1,67,28,203 Tuticorin Hindustan College of 47.47% 6,38,00,098 3,10,78,315 Arts & Science Prince Gold & Diamonds 65.59% 116,43,980 1,12,31,824 Sabapathy 40.93% 20,01,92,927 16,82,66,113 Saravana Stores 100.00% 375,00, 000 2,66,54,842 Textiles – Ramershwaram

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 395/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

REKHA CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 392/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 396/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 371/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 372/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 373/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

REKHA CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 374/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

REKHA CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 375/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

REKHA CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 393/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 394/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

For Respondent: Mr.S.R.Karuppusamy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 50C/43CA of Income tax Act, without which the difference in value for the same property cannot be brought to tax. 3. NO MATERIALS FOUND FOR ON-MONEY: a) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there has been no materials seized evidencing on-money, beyond the value recorded in registered document. b) The CIT (Appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

801 Sl.No Investment (FY 2020-21) AY 2021-22 Amount in Rs. 1 Max Life Insurance 1,400,000 2 SBI Life Insurance 11,090,963 3 Star Union 24,66,304 4 Shares Division 3,240,699 5 Global Capital 1,239,727 6 Magnum Trust 6,000,000 7 Raj TV 556,148,491 8 Shares in Akshitha