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.

6 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai151Delhi111Kolkata42Bangalore29Chennai27Ahmedabad15Hyderabad6Jaipur5Indore5Chandigarh4Cuttack2Visakhapatnam2Pune2Rajkot2Guwahati2SC1Surat1Kerala1Jodhpur1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 20114Section 4013Section 201(1)10Section 194H10Section 143(3)4Section 1914Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 1953Section 194J

IDEA CELLULAR LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, WARD-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1445/HYD/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandrasekhar
Section 133ASection 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

transferred to Distributor. The risk of stock remaining unsold, expired etc. is with Distributor. Also, it would demonstrate that the difference between price paid to Assessee and selling price to Retailer is on his own account and not on account of Assessee and hence the Assessee is not a 'person responsible for paying any income'. In fact, a mere purchase

3
Deduction3
Depreciation3

IDEA CELLULAR LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, WARD-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1446/HYD/2015[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandrasekhar
Section 133ASection 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

transferred to Distributor. The risk of stock remaining unsold, expired etc. is with Distributor. Also, it would demonstrate that the difference between price paid to Assessee and selling price to Retailer is on his own account and not on account of Assessee and hence the Assessee is not a 'person responsible for paying any income'. In fact, a mere purchase

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 1775/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

194H and 194J of the IT Act, and since the assessee failed to deduct tax from these payments, he held that such expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Further, the A.O also observed that the assessee has made a provision of Rs.51,91,186/- towards scheme discount i.e the additional discount to the customers who participated

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 290/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

194H and 194J of the IT Act, and since the assessee failed to deduct tax from these payments, he held that such expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Further, the A.O also observed that the assessee has made a provision of Rs.51,91,186/- towards scheme discount i.e the additional discount to the customers who participated

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 327/HYD/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

194H and 194J of the IT Act, and since the assessee failed to deduct tax from these payments, he held that such expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Further, the A.O also observed that the assessee has made a provision of Rs.51,91,186/- towards scheme discount i.e the additional discount to the customers who participated