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.

7 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai203Delhi164Chennai65Bangalore51Ahmedabad33Kolkata25Jaipur24Hyderabad24Raipur21Surat17Pune15Visakhapatnam11Jodhpur11Indore10Rajkot8Cochin7Agra5Chandigarh5Lucknow2Cuttack2Nagpur1

Key Topics

Reassessment7Disallowance7Section 40A(2)(b)6Section 406Section 40A(3)4

M/S THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD,KANNUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE

ITA 563/COCH/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Time Prescribed. Accordingly, The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) of the Act. The aforesaid disallowance was confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) as the appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the aforesaid disallowance was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 24/03/2025, impugned by way of present appeal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 4. We have heard both the sides

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/COCH/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They were, in the view of the Revenue, not working partners in terms of section 40(b)(i) of the Act r/w Explanation 4 thereto

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 627/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They were, in the view of the Revenue, not working partners in terms of section 40(b)(i) of the Act r/w Explanation 4 thereto

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 625/COCH/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They were, in the view of the Revenue, not working partners in terms of section 40(b)(i) of the Act r/w Explanation 4 thereto

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 937/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They were, in the view of the Revenue, not working partners in terms of section 40(b)(i) of the Act r/w Explanation 4 thereto

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 624/COCH/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They were, in the view of the Revenue, not working partners in terms of section 40(b)(i) of the Act r/w Explanation 4 thereto

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/COCH/2022[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They were, in the view of the Revenue, not working partners in terms of section 40(b)(i) of the Act r/w Explanation 4 thereto