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.

188 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 143(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,040Delhi3,711Bangalore1,429Kolkata766Ahmedabad671Chennai611Hyderabad583Pune489Jaipur408Karnataka301Chandigarh236Indore233Cochin188Surat149Rajkot121Visakhapatnam120Lucknow81Calcutta68Cuttack56Raipur53Nagpur52Amritsar43Dehradun34Guwahati33Jodhpur26Agra26SC22Telangana17Varanasi12Kerala12Jabalpur11Panaji11Ranchi11Allahabad10Patna10Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana3Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 25082Addition to Income38Section 143(3)35Section 153A17Section 26317Section 2(15)12Section 10(37)11Exemption11Section 143(2)10Section 132

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 247/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Sri.Santam Bose
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

transfer pricing adjustment in the draft assessment order. The final assessment order was passed on 26.04.2013. The assessee, however, claims that the final assessment order was not received by it. Thereafter reassessment notice was issued and orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act was passed on 27.03.2015. The Assessing Officer in the reassessment completed, disallowed the amount claimed

Showing 1–20 of 188 · Page 1 of 10

...
10
Capital Gains10
Deduction5

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 261/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

Price paid Other Exp. Total Rs. Particulars of Land Rs. Rs. Rs. 1 18.06.2008 3724/08 3,00,000 9,81,000 38,000 10,19,000 49.05 Cents in Sy.No.491/2/2Agrl. Land in ArakuzhaPanchayath 2 18.06.2008 3725/08 80,000 3,01,400 10,000 3,11,400 15.070 Cents in Sy. No.492/2/2 in ArakuzhaPanchayath 3 02.07.2008 4096/08 2

APPLEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

ITA 955/COCH/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: Shri Reuben JosephFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

143(3) read with Section 144C read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bengaluru [for short ‘DRP’], on 12/08/2024 under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal

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

143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous and be revised accordingly.” 4. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 2.3.2022 (pg. 45 to 51 of PB) where the assessee submitted that the main object of the assessee is to protect small and marginal farmers and increase the living standards of farmers

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

143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous and be revised accordingly.” 4. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 2.3.2022 (pg. 45 to 51 of PB) where the assessee submitted that the main object of the assessee is to protect small and marginal farmers and increase the living standards of farmers

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 601/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

143(3) read with Section 92CA read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bangalore [for short ‘DRP’], on 07/08/2017 under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a subsidiary of International

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 210/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 27/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 307/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 28/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 30/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 305/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 308/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 31/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 310/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 35/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 54/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 55/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 34/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

143(3) for the A Y 2009-10 in the case of persons searched namely Smt. GracyBabu, Sri. Jose Thomas and Sri.P. J. Paulose who were the heads of family comprising of adult members only. No assessments in consequence to the search by invoking provisions of section 153C were made in the cases of family members who were trustees.Based