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.

2 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 80Iclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai15Delhi13Chandigarh2Chennai2Bangalore2Cochin1Ahmedabad1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 14A6Section 92C2Transfer Pricing2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1402/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.,\nNo.1, Sardar Patel Road,\nGuindy, Chennai-600 032.\n[PAN: AAAСА 4651 L]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8(1),\nLTU-II,\nChennai.\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1663/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8,\nChennai.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nM/s. Ashok Leyl

Section 14ASection 92C

pricing scrutiny and the TPO in the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of\nthe Act had found these specified domestic transactions to be at arm's\nlength and no adverse inference was drawn u/s 80-IA(8) of the Act.\nHaving regard to these contemporaneous facts, we find merit in the plea\nof the Ld. AR of the assessee that

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: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
07 Jul 2025
AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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

pricing scrutiny and the TPO in the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act had found these specified domestic transactions to be at arm's length and no adverse inference was drawn u/s 80-IA(8) of the Act. Having regard to these contemporaneous facts, we find merit in the plea of the Ld. AR of the assessee that