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.

3 results for “TDS”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore344Mumbai300Delhi294Chennai111Kolkata46Ahmedabad41Pune40Hyderabad34Chandigarh14Indore11Jaipur5Visakhapatnam5Rajkot4Karnataka4Cuttack3Cochin3Kerala1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 144C(5)5Section 404Section 234B2Section 92C(3)2Section 194J2Section 1902Disallowance2Natural Justice2

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

method. 6.5 The TPO/ AO erroneously concluded that no services were received by the assessee, without appreciating the business realities of the Company and the evidences provided during the course of the TP assessment. 6.6 TPO / AO has ignored the fact that 92.31 % of the revenue was earned on account of the client services by USTRPL who has customer relationship

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

method. 6.5 The TPO/ AO erroneously concluded that no services were received by the assessee, without appreciating the business realities of the Company and the evidences provided during the course of the TP assessment. 6.6 TPO / AO has ignored the fact that 92.31 % of the revenue was earned on account of the client services by USTRPL who has customer relationship

TORRY HARRIS SEA FOODS LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 447/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

TP)A. No./447C/2016 2. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore did not properly appreciated the fact that your appellant company is mainly exporting the products ranging to 25% glaze, whereas the rate quoted by MPEDA is only 10-20% glaze. 3. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore also did not consider the submissions of the appellant to the effect that with