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.

3 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 172(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai239Delhi131Hyderabad72Chennai65Cochin61Chandigarh59Jaipur48Bangalore45Raipur19Surat14Ahmedabad12Nagpur10Indore10Agra8Kolkata7Varanasi5Lucknow4Rajkot4Cuttack3Pune2Jodhpur2Dehradun1Allahabad1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 269S8Section 271D4Addition to Income3Section 10(38)2Section 1322Penalty2Search & Seizure2

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

4) of the Act has accepted that these transactions are loan transactions and, therefore, the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS & 269T of the Act. Thereafter the JCIT has proceeded to levy the penalty u/s.271D & 271E of the Act for the respective assessment years. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack
18 Sept 2024
AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

4) of the Act has accepted that these transactions are loan transactions and, therefore, the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS & 269T of the Act. Thereafter the JCIT has proceeded to levy the penalty u/s.271D & 271E of the Act for the respective assessment years. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 56/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Keshav Dubey, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

4. We have, therefore, at the outset put it to learned counsel for the Appellant that since there are consistent findings of fact and the entire dispute raised by the Appellant is factual, there is no reason for the Court to entertain the present appeal and no question of law arises for our determination. 5. Counsel for the Appellant