Search: transfer pricing | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

2,285 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 2(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,437 Delhi2,285 Chennai515 Hyderabad467 Bangalore434 Ahmedabad336 Kolkata257 Jaipur253 Chandigarh185 Pune184 SC180 Indore145 Cochin126 Rajkot110 Surat105 Visakhapatnam69 Nagpur66 Lucknow50 Raipur48 Cuttack37 Amritsar32 Jodhpur29 Guwahati27 Agra25 Dehradun25 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN17 Jabalpur11 Patna10 Varanasi7 Panaji7 Allahabad5 Ranchi4 DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70 Section 143(3)62 Transfer Pricing38 Disallowance34 Section 271(1)(c)33 Section 144C27 Section 92C25 Deduction22 Comparables/TP22 Penalty20 Section 14A19 Section 8016

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

ITA 2452/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 68Section 69A

transferred to the State on the principle of escheat. For these events to happen, requisite amendments to the Income-tax Act may be required. 18. We shall now turn our attention to the facts and details of the present appeals. The appeal of the revenue in respect of assessment years 1984-85 and 1986-87 was rejected

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALLAN EXTN., DELHI vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

ITA 2451/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 68Section 69A

transferred to the State on the principle of escheat. For these events to happen, requisite amendments to the Income-tax Act may be required. 18. We shall now turn our attention to the facts and details of the present appeals. The appeal of the revenue in respect of assessment years 1984-85 and 1986-87 was rejected

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

1 2 2 2 4 ” X 3 6 ” 4 2 0 6 & G e n e r a l Ma r t 37. On being inquired by the bench, the ld. counsel strenously took 27 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022 us through the various items of purchase and corresponding purchases from unrelated entities or such purchases made by AEs etc. to demonstrate that

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VATIKA LIMITED,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3591/DEL/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2688/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VATIKA LIMITED,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VATIKA LIMITED,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3595/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VATIKA LIMITED,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

VATIKA LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3705/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

VATIKA LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3711/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

VATIKA LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

VATIKA LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3710/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2687/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

VATIKA LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VATIKA LIMITED,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3594/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2376/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

VATIKA LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3707/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

VATIKA LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3706/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

VATIKA LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3712/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. U.K. PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the COs of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2690/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that

Showing 1–20 of 2,285 · Page 1 of 115

...