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.

5 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 80G(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi102Mumbai95Bangalore55Chennai33Kolkata32Chandigarh25Pune24Ahmedabad18Hyderabad17Lucknow11Rajkot11Jaipur7Indore7Ranchi6Cuttack5Agra3Cochin3Jodhpur2Amritsar2Nagpur1Punjab & Haryana1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 80G5Section 143(1)5Section 143(2)5Section 805Section 143(3)5Deduction5Depreciation5Disallowance5Addition to Income5

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 92/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 93/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 333/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 381/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 375/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above