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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore410Mumbai403Delhi338Chennai94Kolkata93Ahmedabad72Hyderabad52Pune45Indore27Jaipur17Chandigarh12Amritsar8Karnataka7Guwahati5Surat5Visakhapatnam5Dehradun2Cochin2Cuttack1SC1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 144C(5)6Section 143(3)2Section 2532Section 92C2Section 144C2Section 92C(2)2Section 36(1)(iii)2Section 36(1)2Transfer Pricing2

ACIT CORPORATE, COCHIN vs. M/S.JOY ALUKKAS (INDIA) LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 151/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 253Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

gain as part of operating cost / operating income. The Safe Harbour Rules are indicative of legislative intent and should have been followed. 3. The Dispute Resolution Panel failed to note that as per section 92C(2), as applicable to the relevant year, if the variation between ALP and the price at which the international transaction had been undertaken is less

Disallowance2
Addition to Income2
Revision u/s 2632

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 190/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 253Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

gain as part of operating cost / operating income. The Safe Harbour Rules are indicative of legislative intent and should have been followed. 3. The Dispute Resolution Panel failed to note that as per section 92C(2), as applicable to the relevant year, if the variation between ALP and the price at which the international transaction had been undertaken is less