BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

10 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 282(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi121Mumbai111Bangalore54Jaipur49Chandigarh36Chennai29Hyderabad18Ahmedabad15Surat11Pune10Indore10Agra7Rajkot7Cuttack3Nagpur3Jodhpur2Lucknow2Kolkata2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1Varanasi1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 8035Section 143(3)23Section 14710Section 689Disallowance9Addition to Income9Section 10(38)6Deduction5Survey u/s 133A5

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1654/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

Transfer Pricing Regulations talk of individual transactions to be benchmarked. He submitted that the assessee made claim of ‘entity-level’ comparison before DRP also, but the DRP has over-ruled assessee’s claim with reasoning. Referring to Page 10 and 11 of DRP order, Ld. DR emphasized the reasoning given by DRP, Page 19 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India

Exemption4
Section 144C(5)3
Section 92C3

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 75/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Andritz Hydro Private Dcit Circe 1(1) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. D-17, Mpakvn Industrial Area, Mandideep Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcv 2466 R Assessee By Shri Rahul, Kaul Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

section 92D(1) and rules made thereunder or the information or data used in computation of arm’s length price is not reliable or correct. A similar explanation has been provided by the CBDT in circular no.12 dated 23rd August 2001. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted as per the circular issued by the CBDT the TPO was bound

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 34/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete as on 31.03.2012 were part and parcel of entire housing project approved by local authority on 24.03.2007 and so as per conditions stipulated under section

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 35/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete as on 31.03.2012 were part and parcel of entire housing project approved by local authority on 24.03.2007 and so as per conditions stipulated under section

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 24/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete as on 31.03.2012 were part and parcel of entire housing project approved by local authority on 24.03.2007 and so as per conditions stipulated under section

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 36/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete as on 31.03.2012 were part and parcel of entire housing project approved by local authority on 24.03.2007 and so as per conditions stipulated under section

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 37/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete as on 31.03.2012 were part and parcel of entire housing project approved by local authority on 24.03.2007 and so as per conditions stipulated under section

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

ITA 217/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 68

282. Page 5 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal and Ankur Agarwal Page 6 of 17 6. The assessee is a regular investor in shares for last 15 to 20 years and this fact is also evident from the statement of the assessee recorded by the AO. It is not necessary that the assessee must have the knowledge

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

ITA 216/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 68

282. Page 5 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal and Ankur Agarwal Page 6 of 17 6. The assessee is a regular investor in shares for last 15 to 20 years and this fact is also evident from the statement of the assessee recorded by the AO. It is not necessary that the assessee must have the knowledge

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

ITA 215/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 68

282. Page 5 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal and Ankur Agarwal Page 6 of 17 6. The assessee is a regular investor in shares for last 15 to 20 years and this fact is also evident from the statement of the assessee recorded by the AO. It is not necessary that the assessee must have the knowledge