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.

15 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 269clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi294Mumbai285Karnataka244Bangalore94Hyderabad85Chennai59Jaipur49Indore41Pune27Kolkata27Ahmedabad25Chandigarh17Calcutta16Cochin15Cuttack9Telangana5Dehradun4Agra3Rajasthan3SC3Amritsar2Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income13Section 6811Section 139(1)11Section 153A11Section 143(3)3Section 2(14)(iii)2Section 482Deduction2

M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

ITA 500/COCH/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 145ASection 45Section 45(5)(b)Section 48

269,257 2,535,526 31-03-2009 09-02-2013 Bank 9,756,627 9,756,627 31-03-2013 07-06-2013 Bank 752,298 19-06-2013 Bank 16,572,491 09-06-2013 TDS 3,009,047 20,333,836 31-03-2014 Total 32,625,989 32,625,989 Copy of the Bank Statement

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: Disposed
ITAT Cochin
31 Oct 2023
AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. As explained by it in G.M. Omer Khan vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 269 (SC), in the context of a land situated in a Village falling under a Municipality: ‘pressure on land in the vicinity of towns being what it is, profits likely to arise in its transactions would rightly catch

THE CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, THE CENTRAL CIRCLE,KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 349/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 350/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P>SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 352/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P>SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 354/COCH/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 355/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P. SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 347/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNILKUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 351/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 358/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 360/COCH/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2015-2016

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 359/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNILKUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 348/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

transfer of funds. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala was only a partner of the C.A. firm, who had audited the accounts of M/s. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and he had issued an audit report in Form No. 3CA and its annexure in From No. 3CD. It was submitted that Shri Ravi Biyala also retracted his statement

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 29.12.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. ITA Nos. 54& 84/Coch/2012 (AY: 2008-09) P.C. Jose v. Dy CIT / Dy. CIT v. P.C. Jose Ex-parte Order 2. The appeals were heard at length on 10.08.2023, covering all the issues, including the principal one, being the assessment

GEORGE STANLEY,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 587/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2016 for assessment year (AY) 2014-2015, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 20.12.2021. 2. The appeal, filed on 11.05.2022, after accounting for the blanket saving on account of Covid by the Hon’ble Apex Court