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.

9 results for “transfer pricing”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi67Chennai41Jaipur22Surat16Agra14Jodhpur12Bangalore11Mumbai10Hyderabad9Amritsar8Ahmedabad5Indore5Cuttack4Pune4Kolkata3Lucknow3Calcutta2Chandigarh2Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 6832Section 80J18Section 13112Cash Deposit9Demonetization9Addition to Income9Section 143(3)6Deduction4Section 143(2)3Section 142(1)

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 561/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

transfer of property in the goods, and a price. ‘Price’ was further defined under section 2(10) of the Sale of Goods Act to mean 'money consideration for a sale of-goods'. Thus, in a contract of sale, payment of price in money is an essential part. The word 'money' has not been defined under the said

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

3
Section 139(1)3
Section 69A3
ITA 560/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

transfer of property in the goods, and a price. ‘Price’ was further defined under section 2(10) of the Sale of Goods Act to mean 'money consideration for a sale of-goods'. Thus, in a contract of sale, payment of price in money is an essential part. The word 'money' has not been defined under the said

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 58/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

transfer of property in the goods, and a price. ‘Price’ was further defined under section 2(10) of the Sale of Goods Act to mean 'money consideration for a sale of-goods'. Thus, in a contract of sale, payment of price in money is an essential part. The word 'money' has not been defined under the said

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 59/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

transfer of property in the goods, and a price. ‘Price’ was further defined under section 2(10) of the Sale of Goods Act to mean 'money consideration for a sale of-goods'. Thus, in a contract of sale, payment of price in money is an essential part. The word 'money' has not been defined under the said

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1157/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

price in legal tender, and accordingly any other claim to the contrary is not acceptable. In view of the above, the sum of Rs.8,44,00,000/- represents unexplained cash and added to the total income of the assessee company.” 17. On being aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1183/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

price in legal tender, and accordingly any other claim to the contrary is not acceptable. In view of the above, the sum of Rs.8,44,00,000/- represents unexplained cash and added to the total income of the assessee company.” 17. On being aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

price in legal tender, and accordingly any other claim to the contrary is not acceptable. In view of the above, the sum of Rs.8,44,00,000/- represents unexplained cash and added to the total income of the assessee company.” 17. On being aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

JAGADISHWAR BARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1436/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 294Section 69A

price of Rs. 9,10,000/- per acre were placed on record. The Ld. AR submitted that a copy of the registered sale deed No. 2610/2016, dated 07.11.2016, wherein it was stated that the assessee, along with his son, had transferred the title of the subject agricultural land admeasuring 17 – 20 Guntas was also filed with

DAKAPPAGARI NAVEEN KUMAR,MEDAK vs. ITO., WARD - 1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed

ITA 911/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Respondent: \nCA A Srinivas
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69ASection 80C

price of the sales made during the year. Apart\nfrom the estimation of the income from the business of liquor\nretail sale, the Assessing Officer also made an addition\nu/sec.69A of the Act on account of cash deposits during the\ndemonetization period to the tune of Rs.72,45,860/-. The\nassessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before\nthe