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.

62 results for “charitable trust”+ Transfer Pricingclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka247Mumbai142Delhi116Chennai82Hyderabad62Bangalore55Jaipur37Pune37Cochin36Lucknow35Chandigarh33Ahmedabad25Kolkata22Calcutta16Visakhapatnam13Amritsar13Rajkot11Surat10Indore7Agra7Telangana5SC5Cuttack5Kerala5Varanasi4Jodhpur3Nagpur3Allahabad3Rajasthan3Raipur2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income47Section 139(1)40Section 153C38Section 6938Section 13238Search & Seizure38Section 80G30Exemption16Section 11

MYADAM KISHAN RAO CHARITABLE TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/HYD/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 34

charitable or Page 14 of 27 religious purposes has been applied other than for the objects of the Trust and (b) the Trust or institution has income from profits and gains of business, which is not incidental to the attainment of its objects and the trust not maintains separate books of accounts (c) Trust or institution is applied its income

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

11
Section 143(3)10
Section 25l10
Transfer Pricing6

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and documentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any adjustment. 4. Thereafter

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 145/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)

transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3. When the assessee filed objections before the learned DRP, learned DRP, while confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the Act, issued certain directions. Though the assessee filed this appeal on several grounds, many grounds were withdrawn, stating the assessee had relief in respect of some issues

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 482/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)

transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3. When the assessee filed objections before the learned DRP, learned DRP, while confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 80G of the Act, issued certain directions. Though the assessee filed this appeal on several grounds, many grounds were withdrawn, stating the assessee had relief in respect of some issues

DEVGEM SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2225/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Transfer Pricing Study Report which was filed with the TPO by letter dated 25.05.2015 (see pages 211, 212, 225 and 240 to 244 of the Factual Paperbook). A perusal of pages 240 to 244 shows that the Appellant had benchmarked the :- 5 -: ITA Nos.187/Hyd/2017 & 2225/Hyd/2017 interest on FCD by comparing the same with debentures issued by Indian companies, details whereof

DEVGEN SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-17(1) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 187/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Transfer Pricing Study Report which was filed with the TPO by letter dated 25.05.2015 (see pages 211, 212, 225 and 240 to 244 of the Factual Paperbook). A perusal of pages 240 to 244 shows that the Appellant had benchmarked the :- 5 -: ITA Nos.187/Hyd/2017 & 2225/Hyd/2017 interest on FCD by comparing the same with debentures issued by Indian companies, details whereof

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Advocate Prathishta Singh &For Respondent: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment is concerned, he submitted that a calculation error has been pointed out identifying the escaped income at INR 29,87,704/- which relates to the corporate guarantee fee which has been computed by the TPO. He submitted that the TPO had made the adjustment on the basis of the quantum of the corporate guarantee taking into account

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the\nassessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and\ndocumentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price\n(ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any\nadjustment.\n4.\nThereafter

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

ITA 399/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

charitable purposes registered as such under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is exempt under Section 10(23BBA) of the Act, but the income of such public or religious trusts or endowments, viz. maths, temples, gurdwaras, wakfs, churches, synagogues, agiaries or other places of public or religious worship cannot be brought within the meaning of the exemption contemplated in the said

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 29/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

transferred from the principal account and the dame is deposited as fixed deposit in the state bank of Mysore. But in the books of accounts it is treated as that the fixed deposits is made directly by principal account, there is no non disclosure of the credit in bank. Hence it is prayed your honourable appellate authority to delete

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: \nShri Naresh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 270A

Charitable Trust cited supra, there was no hard and fast\nrule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and courts\nshould adopt a pragmatic approach and the courts should exercise\ntheir discretion on the facts of the each case keeping in mind that in\nconstruing, the expression \"sufficient cause" the principle of advancing\nsubstantial justice

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. NALGONDA DIOCESE SOCIETY, NALGONDA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2063/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alakamony, A.M. & Shri S.S.Godara, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri M. Muralidhar, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

price and upon such terms, conditions and rates of interest.” 3. Ld.D.R. vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee eligible for sec.11 exemption thereby holding that no transfer of its asset in favour of M/s Diocese Society had ever taken place. We find no merit

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya –
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)

transfer of land in relation to establishment of industrial estate or development of industrial areas and of setting up of industries cannot be said to be dealing in land or buildings for the obvious reason that the State is carrying out the objects of the Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya –
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)

transfer of land in relation to establishment of industrial estate or development of industrial areas and of setting up of industries cannot be said to be dealing in land or buildings for the obvious reason that the State is carrying out the objects of the Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1725/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

transfer of land in relation to establishment of industrial estate or development of industrial areas and of setting up of industries cannot be said to be dealing in land or buildings for the obvious reason that the State is carrying out the objects of the Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1880/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

transfer of land in relation to establishment of industrial estate or development of industrial areas and of setting up of industries cannot be said to be dealing in land or buildings for the obvious reason that the State is carrying out the objects of the Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1724/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

transfer of land in relation to establishment of industrial estate or development of industrial areas and of setting up of industries cannot be said to be dealing in land or buildings for the obvious reason that the State is carrying out the objects of the Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1723/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

transfer of land in relation to establishment of industrial estate or development of industrial areas and of setting up of industries cannot be said to be dealing in land or buildings for the obvious reason that the State is carrying out the objects of the Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1878/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

transfer of land in relation to establishment of industrial estate or development of industrial areas and of setting up of industries cannot be said to be dealing in land or buildings for the obvious reason that the State is carrying out the objects of the Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1722/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

transfer of land in relation to establishment of industrial estate or development of industrial areas and of setting up of industries cannot be said to be dealing in land or buildings for the obvious reason that the State is carrying out the objects of the Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State