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.

4 results for “transfer pricing”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,398Mumbai1,474Bangalore750Karnataka471Chennai468Ahmedabad350Kolkata315Jaipur298Hyderabad285Pune216Chandigarh164Indore151Cochin117Rajkot87Surat79Calcutta68Telangana64Lucknow52Nagpur48Cuttack46Raipur32SC28Dehradun27Amritsar26Visakhapatnam25Guwahati23Agra22Jodhpur21Rajasthan10Orissa7Kerala7Ranchi7Varanasi6Patna6Panaji5Allahabad4Jabalpur4Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Andhra Pradesh1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)3Section 693Section 14A3Section 1443Addition to Income3Section 143(2)2Section 145(3)2Section 54B2Disallowance2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. MAHAKAUSHAL SUGAR & POWER INDUSTRIES LTD., NARSINGHPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 80

natural justice. On the next date of hearing, Sh. Bardia would refer to the assessee’s letter dated 16/12/2019 vide which, in response to the AO’s requisition vide letter dated 21/11/2019 in the assessment proceedings, the said bills and vouchers were submitted thereto online. The ld. CIT-DR would seek further time to obtain a response from

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI DEEPAK SINGH BANAFER, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 92/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sh. L.L. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 54B

transfer stands clearly defined by law. It would, given its nature, not even fetch the price applicable to an agricultural land. And, further, stands sold as an, urban, vacant piece of land, with, rather, no agriculture potential, which normally a piece of land, unless the soil quality is very poor, has. That is, was not an agricultural land

RASHMEET SINGH MALHOTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 226/JAB/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 48

justice. Disallowance u/s. 14A: 3. Having perused entire record, we find that the assessee has earned and dividend income which is exempt of Rs. 1.4 lakhs. The Assessing Officer disallowed of Rs. 3.79 lakhs out of which of Rs. 2.63 lakhs was on account of interest. The assessee is having own capital of Rs. 76.52 lakhs and interest free unsecured

M/S.ASIT DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/JAB/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)

nature thereof as partners’ capital, i.e., as contribution toward the capital of the partnership, can thus be said to have been established. The only import of this fact, i.e., of the firm being not in existence up to 31/3/2004, that therefore obtains is that the assessee has been validly called 8 Asit Dixit v. ITO upon to explain the credits