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.

59 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai785Delhi739Bangalore385Karnataka261Kolkata243Chennai189Pune170Ahmedabad164Jaipur147Hyderabad106Indore85Chandigarh73Cochin59Rajkot52Calcutta51Visakhapatnam44Surat40Lucknow25Cuttack22Raipur22Agra22Jodhpur22Guwahati21Nagpur19Amritsar9SC8Telangana7Dehradun6Varanasi6Rajasthan6Jabalpur3Panaji3Allahabad2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1Patna1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 26350Addition to Income41Section 143(3)17Section 2(15)16Section 153A13Section 6811Section 139(1)11Capital Gains9Section 2(24)(vi)8Section 48

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 59 · Page 1 of 3

8
Disallowance6
Revision u/s 2634

KEYA FOODS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHERTHALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 608/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Keya Foods International Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pcit, Kp/111/212 Kuthlathode, Kochi. Thuravoor P. O., Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha – 688 532. Pan : Aagca 5456 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. A. Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

section 263 of the Act, which read as under :- “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

SMT.MITHRA PAUL,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1, THODUPUZHA

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

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

transfer of Rs.60,00,00/- as gift to the assessee vide letter dated 23/08/2016. The assessee had not revealed these receipts tantamount to Rs.95,00,000/- in the return of income. The Assessing Officer added back an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- as undisclosed income, which is 10% of these receipts. As there were no expenses involved in the sale

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

section 263 of the Act, which read as under :- “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

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

section 263 of the Act, which read as under :- “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

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

section 263 of the Act which is invoked in the present case, which read as under :- “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

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 185/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

263 only authorised him to examine whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, that restriction of power cannot affect the powers of the Tribunal which is bound to exercise under Section 254 of the Act. In such a situation, having regard to the language of Section

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 191/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

263 only authorised him to examine whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, that restriction of power cannot affect the powers of the Tribunal which is bound to exercise under Section 254 of the Act. In such a situation, having regard to the language of Section

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)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 03.3.2021 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. CIT’) in respect of his assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for AY 2016-17 vide order dated 07.12.2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

price of Rs. 1 lakh received in cash. This sale deed evidently is a conscious attempt to avoid the provisions of Chapter XX-C. This property is worth nearly Rs. 12 crores and the total declared sale consideration is only Rs. 3 crores. By avoiding a normal sale deed, the assessee has circumvent the provisions of Chapter

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

price of Rs. 1 lakh received in cash. This sale deed evidently is a conscious attempt to avoid the provisions of Chapter XX-C. This property is worth nearly Rs. 12 crores and the total declared sale consideration is only Rs. 3 crores. By avoiding a normal sale deed, the assessee has circumvent the provisions of Chapter

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

price of Rs. 1 lakh received in cash. This sale deed evidently is a conscious attempt to avoid the provisions of Chapter XX-C. This property is worth nearly Rs. 12 crores and the total declared sale consideration is only Rs. 3 crores. By avoiding a normal sale deed, the assessee has circumvent the provisions of Chapter

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

price of Rs. 1 lakh received in cash. This sale deed evidently is a conscious attempt to avoid the provisions of Chapter XX-C. This property is worth nearly Rs. 12 crores and the total declared sale consideration is only Rs. 3 crores. By avoiding a normal sale deed, the assessee has circumvent the provisions of Chapter

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

price of Rs. 1 lakh received in cash. This sale deed evidently is a conscious attempt to avoid the provisions of Chapter XX-C. This property is worth nearly Rs. 12 crores and the total declared sale consideration is only Rs. 3 crores. By avoiding a normal sale deed, the assessee has circumvent the provisions of Chapter

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

price of Rs. 1 lakh received in cash. This sale deed evidently is a conscious attempt to avoid the provisions of Chapter XX-C. This property is worth nearly Rs. 12 crores and the total declared sale consideration is only Rs. 3 crores. By avoiding a normal sale deed, the assessee has circumvent the provisions of Chapter

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

price of Rs. 1 lakh received in cash. This sale deed evidently is a conscious attempt to avoid the provisions of Chapter XX-C. This property is worth nearly Rs. 12 crores and the total declared sale consideration is only Rs. 3 crores. By avoiding a normal sale deed, the assessee has circumvent the provisions of Chapter

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

price of Rs. 1 lakh received in cash. This sale deed evidently is a conscious attempt to avoid the provisions of Chapter XX-C. This property is worth nearly Rs. 12 crores and the total declared sale consideration is only Rs. 3 crores. By avoiding a normal sale deed, the assessee has circumvent the provisions of Chapter

M/S.MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL,COCHIN vs. THE DY DIT (EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

ITA 127/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Vs The Dy Director Of Income Tax Medical Mission Hospital (Exemption) Kolencherry 682 311 Kochi ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(7)Section 47A(7)

263 of the I T Act. However, the further question is whether the CIT is right in invoking the provisions of section 11(4) of the Act. To understand this issue, provisions of section 11(4), 2 (13) and 2(15) needs to be analyzed. For ready reference the relevant provisions are reproduced below: Sub section (4) of section

M/S.TRIO PROPERTY DEVELOPERS P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263Section 53Section 53A

price for the constructed area of 71,444 sq. ft. which was to be delivered to the assessee, as per the agreement was Rs.975 per sq. ft. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that assessee having handed over the possession of the land, there was a transfer within the meaning of 2(47) of the Act read with section

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 69

263 ITR 354 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad) (v) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) (vi) CIT vs. Chandni Buchar (2010) 323 ITR 510 (P&H) (vii) Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) (viii)Rajdeep Builders vs. ACIT in ITA No.666/CHD/2010 dated 27/04/2012 (ITAT Chandigarh Bench