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.

12 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 111Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai61Delhi12Ahmedabad8Kolkata7Indore5Bangalore4Hyderabad3Nagpur3

Key Topics

Section 143(3)9Capital Gains8Business Income7Section 115J6Section 10(38)6Short Term Capital Gains6Section 14A5Addition to Income5Long Term Capital Gains

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GYAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1594/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Jaiswal, D.RFor Respondent: Sh. M.P.Rastogi, Adv. And Sh. Ajay Marwah, C.A

price or the time for delivery of goods or both is postponed. The physical delivery of goods is not an essential ingredient of sale. (b) It is not the case where the assessee simply intended to transfer the shares of a particular company, but through this agreement the assessee was intended to transfer the immovable property held by the company

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi
5
Section 324
Exemption4
Disallowance4
25 Jun 2025
AY 2022-23
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

111A,\nsection 112, section 112A, etc.\n\n• Further, under the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956,\nshares and mutual fund units are identified as separate securities.\n\n• The aforesaid view is also supported by Cochin Tribunal in the case\nof DCIT(IT) vs. K.E. Faizal [2019] 178 ITD 383 and Mumbai Tribunal in\nthe case

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 200/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 44

111A and / or section 112 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs 1,04,90,324/- out of the total depreciation allowance claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO / CIT(A) erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271A

transferred to D-mat account just before the sale was nothing but a colorable transaction for claiming the same to be Short Term Capital Gain for taking the benefit of provisions of Section 111A of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. Vs CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) " Indramani

SH. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133(6)

price movement of shares on regular basis. Further the account indicates a level of volume that would engage considerable time and attention of the assessee. Considering the magnitude and frequency of trade in shares it can be easily concluded that the motive of the assessee was never earning capital gain by investing in shares. The motive of the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1750/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation allowance of Rs. 1,82,35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

ITA 1952/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

111A and / or 112 of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 52,88,173/- out of total depreciation allowance of Rs. 1,82,35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred

CIT vs. DEVASAN INVESTMENT PVT LTD

ITA - 1103 / 2011HC Delhi16 Apr 2014

Section 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had raised a query why income from STCG/L TCG should not be treated as business income. The assessee claimed that funds invested in Mutual Funds and Equity Shares on which capital gains have been received were investments and could not be treated as Stock in Trade. The units were

CIT vs. DEVASAN INVESTMENT PVT LTD

ITA - 1102 / 2011HC Delhi16 Apr 2014

Section 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had raised a query why income from STCG/L TCG should not be treated as business income. The assessee claimed that funds invested in Mutual Funds and Equity Shares on which capital gains have been received were investments and could not be treated as Stock in Trade. The units were

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAJIV KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4989/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Laliet Kumarita No. 4989/Del /2012 [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. Shri Rajiv Kapooor Circle - 22(1) C/O H.L. Kapoor Investment & New Delhi Financial Consultants 5, Trimurti Building [Basement], Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan : Aampk 0195 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Department By : Shri Kartar Singh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Amit Sharma, Ca Shri Prashant Sharma, Ca Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2016 Order

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kartar Singh, CIT-DR
Section 194H

111A. Thus, the statute categorically allows that shares may be capital assets, and specifically short term capital assets, even if held for a duration of 1 day or just under 12 months. {4.2} It has further been argued on behalf of the appellant that circular No. 4 dated 15.06.2007 of the CBDT provides that an assessee may be both

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7103/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

section 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings also, the assessee filed written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his order. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned income shown

M/S. MADURA BIOTECH (P) LTD.,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

ITA 2593/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali &
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and lead us to the conclusion that the assessee is indulging in activities of a trader in shares. As observed in Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (supra), it is a manner of first impression