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.

209 results for “transfer pricing”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi829Mumbai773Jaipur242Chennai209Bangalore205Hyderabad184Kolkata135Ahmedabad120Chandigarh116Indore116Cochin107Rajkot61Pune56Surat41Calcutta35Visakhapatnam30Nagpur30Amritsar24Cuttack23Agra22Guwahati20Raipur19Jodhpur17Lucknow14Patna7Varanasi7SC4Dehradun4Allahabad3Karnataka3Telangana2Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income65Section 153A60Section 143(3)44Section 13238Disallowance32Section 13924Section 80H24Section 8020Section 139(1)13

FUTURE GAMING AND HOTEL SERVICES P LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 950/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - LdFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. CIT-DR a/w Ms. Anitha (Addl. CIT) – Ld.
Section 153ASection 271A

undisclosed income which would attract penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act. Since the assessee did not pay the taxes before filing of return of income, higher penalty of 60% would apply as per Sec. 271AAB(1A)(b). Finally. Ld. AO levied impugned penalty of Rs.342 Lacs. 2.9 The assessee reiterated its submissions during appellate proceedings. However

Showing 1–20 of 209 · Page 1 of 11

...
Section 26313
Deduction8
Depreciation8

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 2197/CHNY/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 132Section 148Section 15Section 158BSection 17(1)(iv)

undisclosed income”. 35. Accordingly, the related grounds raised by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.162/Mds/2003 stands allowed. ITA No. 2197/Mds/2005 – AY 1999-2000 – Appeal filed by Assessee: 36. The facts of the case insofar as the appeal in ITA No.2197/Mds/2005 for the A.Y.1999-2000 is concerned as follows: 37. The assessee was subjected to original scrutiny assessment proceedings

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 744/CHNY/2005[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 132Section 148Section 15Section 158BSection 17(1)(iv)

undisclosed income”. 35. Accordingly, the related grounds raised by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.162/Mds/2003 stands allowed. ITA No. 2197/Mds/2005 – AY 1999-2000 – Appeal filed by Assessee: 36. The facts of the case insofar as the appeal in ITA No.2197/Mds/2005 for the A.Y.1999-2000 is concerned as follows: 37. The assessee was subjected to original scrutiny assessment proceedings

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3374/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 2(22)(e)

transferred for normal business transaction and hence cannot be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant u/s.2(22)(e). 13.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in adding the long term capital gains of Rs.16,24,68,072/- disallowing the exempt u/s.10(38) as undisclosed income from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 2982/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the the cost. It is the realization of excess over the cost incurred of excess over the cost incurred thatonlyforms part of the profit included

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 86/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

undisclosed income for the block period. With the above observation the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 23. The next issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of ` 4.44 Crores under Section 37 of the Act. 24. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that FCC Bond holders

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

ITA 1665/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

undisclosed income for the block period. With the above observation the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 23. The next issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of ` 4.44 Crores under Section 37 of the Act. 24. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that FCC Bond holders

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 318/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

undisclosed income for the block period. With the above observation the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 23. The next issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of ` 4.44 Crores under Section 37 of the Act. 24. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that FCC Bond holders

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

ITA 1020/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

undisclosed income for the block period. With the above observation the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 23. The next issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of ` 4.44 Crores under Section 37 of the Act. 24. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that FCC Bond holders

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

ITA 319/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

undisclosed income for the block period. With the above observation the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 23. The next issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of ` 4.44 Crores under Section 37 of the Act. 24. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that FCC Bond holders

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1386/CHNY/2010[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

undisclosed income for the block period. With the above observation the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 23. The next issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of ` 4.44 Crores under Section 37 of the Act. 24. Shri M. Swaminathan, Ld. Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that FCC Bond holders

K.G. DENIM LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, TP-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1718/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 263Section 263(1)(c)Section 801A

income of Rs.NIL. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Further the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The reference was made by AO in terms of Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer to examine the domestic transfer pricing transactions reported for the assessment year under consideration. During the TP proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

ITA 800/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14
Section 56(1)

price of the equity shares. Mudajaya has been a listed company. The appellant stated that all these particulars were given to the AO. In the showcause notice, the AO proposed to assess the share premia as undisclosed income. It was stated that once, it was pointed out by the appellant that this was impermissible, he chose to assess the share

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1860/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

undisclosed turnover carried a higher margin or was earned under abnormal circumstances. Therefore, the same gross profit rate as accepted for regular business must necessarily be applied to the alleged suppressed turnover. :-22-: ITA. Nos:1859, 1860 & 1865/Chny/2025 49. Accordingly, the addition made by assessing the entire suppressed sales as income is erroneous and unsustainable both on facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

price of Rs.1,450/-. He further stated\nthat it was the regular practice of the assessee to issue bills for a lower value.\nIn her sworn statement recorded during the survey, the assessee admitted the\ntotal turnover for the relevant assessment year, as on the date of survey, at\nRs.6,64,76,379/-, and further agreed to offer 8% thereof

M/S. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1249/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

transfer or receive any Specified Bank Notes. From the above what is clear is that up to the appointed date Le 31.12.2016, there is no prohibition for dealing with Specified Bank Notes. Therefore, in my considered view, the objection of the AO on this regard in light of said Act is devoid of merits. Further, a similar issue had been

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AMD TRUST CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST , CHENNA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1471/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

transfer or receive any Specified Bank Notes. From the above what is clear is that up to the appointed date Le 31.12.2016, there is no prohibition for dealing with Specified Bank Notes. Therefore, in my considered view, the objection of the AO on this regard in light of said Act is devoid of merits. Further, a similar issue had been

R.SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1466/CHNY/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2021AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1466/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Mr.R.Srinivasan Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 103, Ashok Nagar Main Road Income Tax, Kodambakkam, Corporate Circle-I(2) Chennai-600 024. Chennai. Pan : Aaips 8386H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 132

undisclosed income to the extent of pay in slips found at his premises. Further, in respect of persons at SI. Nos.12, 13 and 15 the address in the account opening form is e appellants address in respect of agricultural land owned by him. 11. All these factors establish the appellant’s control and ownership over the funds held

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1865/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

undisclosed turnover carried a higher margin or was earned\nunder abnormal circumstances. Therefore, the same gross profit rate as\naccepted for regular business must necessarily be applied to the alleged\nsuppressed turnover.\n49. Accordingly, the addition made by assessing the entire suppressed sales\nas income is erroneous and unsustainable both on facts and in law. The\naddition, if any, should

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1859/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

undisclosed turnover carried a higher margin or was earned\nunder abnormal circumstances. Therefore, the same gross profit rate as\naccepted for regular business must necessarily be applied to the alleged\nsuppressed turnover.\n49. Accordingly, the addition made by assessing the entire suppressed sales\nas income is erroneous and unsustainable both on facts and in law. The\naddition, if any, should