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.

3 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,144Mumbai1,132Bangalore363Hyderabad323Karnataka259Jaipur249Kolkata239Ahmedabad228Chennai207Chandigarh149Indore143Pune127Cochin91Rajkot91Surat67Visakhapatnam58Calcutta58Lucknow55Nagpur31Raipur30Agra29Cuttack28Guwahati26Jodhpur19SC17Amritsar14Dehradun10Telangana9Ranchi8Varanasi7Allahabad5Patna3Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Panaji2Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 2633Section 1443Section 143(3)2Section 142(1)2Section 56(2)(vii)2Section 143(2)2Section 145(3)2Addition to Income2

RITA MANCHHANI ,JABALPUR vs. PR. CIT-1 JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‘s appeal is dismissed on the afore-said terms

ITA 19/JAB/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

section, vide provisos thereto, castes an exception where an agreement has been entered fixing the price of the property transferred and a part of the purchase consideration has been paid on or before such agreement. Satisfaction of the provision with reference to the agreement dated 29/3/2011 forms the substance of the assessee‘s case. 6. We, next, consider the assessee

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)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 vide Order dated 24/11/2010. 2. The appeal raises two grounds, as under, which shall be taken up in seriatim: ‘1. That the assessee had filed ITR declaring loss of Rs. 26,130 and the AO has estimated profit

HAJARIMAL MISHRIMAL BAFANA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 43B

transfer is within the same city. In our clear view though, this aspect, i.e., the jurisdiction of the authority to act as the AO in a given case cannot be questioned in the appellate proceedings under the Act in view of the clear mandate of law per sec. 124, requiring all such issues to be decided through the administrative route