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”+ Section 144Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai34Delhi23Mumbai23Jaipur16Bangalore16Kolkata15Chandigarh12Pune12Indore11Hyderabad9Visakhapatnam7Surat6Ahmedabad5Lucknow4Cuttack3Rajkot2Amritsar2SC2Karnataka2Panaji1Allahabad1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 26325Section 144A8Section 143(3)8Section 56(2)(vii)6Revision u/s 2636Section 285Section 50C4Section 50C(2)4Section 50C(1)4

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

ITA 687/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri M. Uday Teja, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED., SEC'BAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Reassessment4
Limitation/Time-bar4
Addition to Income3
ITA 775/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 264Section 92C

Transfer pricing Officer ('TPO') under section 263 of the Act 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT has grossly erred in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act for setting aside the order passed by the Ld. TPO under section 92CA

VENKATA KRISHNA TATINENI,SECUNDERBAD vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 604/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 69A

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

VIJAYA LAKSHMI MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

ITA 232/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144ASection 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

144A as well as the assessing authority went by the registered valuer’s report only. We wish to clarify that although the legislature has introduced section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso for adopting the sale consideration as on the date of agreement itself as the fair market value provided the same had been paid by the approved method only

RAMESH MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

ITA 235/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144ASection 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

144A as well as the assessing authority went by the registered valuer’s report only. We wish to clarify that although the legislature has introduced section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso for adopting the sale consideration as on the date of agreement itself as the fair market value provided the same had been paid by the approved method only

NAVEEN MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

ITA 233/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144ASection 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

144A as well as the assessing authority went by the registered valuer’s report only. We wish to clarify that although the legislature has introduced section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso for adopting the sale consideration as on the date of agreement itself as the fair market value provided the same had been paid by the approved method only

MURALI KRISHNA MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

ITA 234/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144ASection 263Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

144A as well as the assessing authority went by the registered valuer’s report only. We wish to clarify that although the legislature has introduced section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso for adopting the sale consideration as on the date of agreement itself as the fair market value provided the same had been paid by the approved method only

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)
Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

144A in the case of M/s Alpha Avenues Pvt Ltd and M/s Alpha Villas Pvt Ltd, the assessee was looking after family investments. As the Statement is material for Page 5 of 43 ITA No 974 of 2017 Prakash Nimmagadda decision in the case of the assessee, it is humbly submitted that the same may be admitted as evidence under

JYOTHI BHANOTH ,KHAMMAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

ITA 265/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2014-15 Jyothi Bhanoth, Vs. Acit, Khammam. Circle-1, Pan: Anopb 4718 R Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

144A of the Act vide his order dated 29/12/2018. The value of the property was so arrived by the Revenue considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee and keeping in view of its inherent disadvantages of the property. Therefore, even if section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is invoked, the sale consideration cannot