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.

7 results for “transfer pricing”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai219Delhi173Chennai79Bangalore54Kolkata38Ahmedabad35Rajkot34Hyderabad31Jaipur31Pune27Chandigarh23Visakhapatnam21Raipur20Surat20Agra19Indore17Lucknow12Nagpur11Cuttack9Cochin7Jodhpur4Amritsar3Dehradun2Patna1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 2(15)16Section 26311Section 143(3)4Section 114Section 1473Section 36(1)(viia)3Limitation/Time-bar3Section 133A2Section 1482

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 632/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 9 of 12 record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 89[or the Transfer Pricing Officer

Survey u/s 133A2
Addition to Income2
Revision u/s 2632

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 9 of 12 record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 89[or the Transfer Pricing Officer

SHRI.VISWANATHA MANOJ KUMAR,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 151/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

price fixed by the State Government for the purpose of levy of stamp duty, was at Rs.215.21 lakhs, i.e., at Rs.76.03 lacs higher. The provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, reading as under, was thus attracted, applicability of which had not been examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment: Income from other sources

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 838/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. K. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashanth V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 89[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

263 in its respect is thus valid. We decide accordingly. 4.8 Issue # 6: Claim in respect of ‘employee stock option scheme’ ‘Assessee has shown 'employee stock option scheme' expenses at Rs.357.88 lakhs (refer note 23). It has also reported this amount towards ‘amortisation' during the year. In the significant accounting policies (refer pare no.2.1-item O), assessee has stated that expenses

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

price came about on and with reference to the project layout, absent at the time of it’s purchase during 1981-1983. Also, about 97% of the land cost, as apparent (see Table-A), is comprised of the development cost, rendering the purchase cost as marginal and, thus, irrelevant. Table-B is reproduced as under: Name of the Extent Sale

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

price came about on and with reference to the project layout, absent at the time of it’s purchase during 1981-1983. Also, about 97% of the land cost, as apparent (see Table-A), is comprised of the development cost, rendering the purchase cost as marginal and, thus, irrelevant. Table-B is reproduced as under: Name of the Extent Sale