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.

6 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 391clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai274Delhi266Karnataka244Ahmedabad88Bangalore77Jaipur48Kolkata35Pune33Chennai31Hyderabad20Chandigarh19Indore17SC7Visakhapatnam7Cochin6Surat4Calcutta4Telangana4Lucknow3Cuttack3Amritsar3Guwahati2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 10(37)24Section 1486Long Term Capital Gains5Section 143(3)4Capital Gains4Section 92C3Exemption3Section 115J2Section 352

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

391,40,800 12 Provision of corporate purchase 23,08,219 services 13 Provision of corporate information 2,32,10,5456 technology services 14 Investment in equity 50,02,98,250 15 Reimbursement of expenses 1,07,78,001 16 Recovery of expenses 3,69,14,146 3. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter

Reassessment2
Survey u/s 133A2

THE ITO, WARD-2(1), TVM, TVM vs. SMT.G.S.LEKHA, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

ITA 194/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.194/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)

391 ITR 178) wherein it was held that though a sale deed was executed, it was only a compulsory acquisition and based on the I.T.A. No.194 /Coch/2018& CO No. 51/Coch/2018 decision, the CIT(A) had allowed the appeal filed. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Cochin Bench in the case of ITO, Ward 1(4),Trivandrum

THE ITO, WD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM vs. SMT.ASHA VIMALA, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 568/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Mathew Joseph
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)

transferred falls within the limit of Trivandrum Municipal Corporation and the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 10(37) of the I.T.Act was not admissible for the reason that it was not a compulsory acquisition, but a sale through negotiated settlement. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority

THE ITO,, TRIVANDRUM vs. SMT.PADMAJA DEVI AMMA, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 235/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. T.M.Sreedharan
Section 10(37)Section 148

transferred by executing a sale deed. Therefore, it was concluded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 10(37) of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A), by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

THE ITO,, TRIVANDRUM vs. SRI.HARIMURALI SREEDHARA PANICKER, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. T.M.Sreedharan
Section 10(37)Section 148

transferred by executing a sale deed. Therefore, it was concluded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 10(37) of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A), by ITA No.207/Coch/2017 & CO 29/C/2017. 3 Sri.Harimurali Sreedhara Panickar. following

THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM vs. SRI.VINOD BALAKRISHNAN, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 572/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Mathew Joseph
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)

transfer). 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A), by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India [(2017) 391 ITR 178 (SC) and finding that impugned land was agricultural land, ITA No.572/Coch/2018. 3 Sri.Vinod Balakrishnan. where agricultural operations