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.

77 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 36(1)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,123Delhi959Chennai281Hyderabad229Bangalore228Ahmedabad191Jaipur152Chandigarh126Kolkata95Cochin77Indore73Rajkot44Pune43Surat36Visakhapatnam32Raipur30Nagpur28Lucknow22Guwahati20Jodhpur19Agra19Amritsar15Cuttack14Varanasi6Panaji4Allahabad3Dehradun2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 250120Section 153A21Section 143(2)14Section 220(2)12Section 15412Section 244A12Section 143(3)10Section 1328Rectification u/s 154

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 283/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

6
Addition to Income4
Survey u/s 133A4
Limitation/Time-bar3

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 232/COCH/2024[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 233/COCH/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 285/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 28.10.2016 3 Apollo Tyres Ltd. passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act suggested upward TP adjustments in respect of corporate guarantee commission provided to Apollo Vredestein BV (AVBV

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 501/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 505/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KASARAGOD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 439/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 506/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 404/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 458/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 504/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC BUILDWAERS INDIA (P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 456/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 457/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 455/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity