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.

5 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 4(4)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,271Mumbai3,911Bangalore1,716Kolkata848Chennai751Ahmedabad658Pune566Hyderabad564Karnataka515Jaipur412Chandigarh273Surat272Indore207Cochin205SC108Rajkot107Visakhapatnam96Telangana84Lucknow78Calcutta64Nagpur62Cuttack62Raipur60Amritsar38Jodhpur30Guwahati30Dehradun22Agra21Rajasthan13A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN13Kerala13Varanasi12Ranchi11Panaji9Allahabad9Orissa7Patna6Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana3Andhra Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1S.B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1DIPAK MISRA V. GOPALA GOWDA1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)8Section 2014Section 153A3Section 1443Section 1952Section 54B2Section 143(2)2Section 145(3)2Addition to Income

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

4 | P a g e ITO v. Deepak Singh Banafer transfer within a period of three years of its purchase, the cost shall be nil; or (ii) if the amount of the capital gain is equal to or less than the cost of the new asset, the capital gain shall not be charged under section

2
Deduction2
TDS2

JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MAYDT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 12/JAB/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Sarabjeet Singh Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mokha, 1112, Jabalpur. Pachpedi, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afxpm8245F Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 10Section 132Section 153A

transfer found in the paper seized during the course of search, total valuation was noted as Rs.6.25 crores. The AO accordingly, made addition in the hands of the assessee in proportion to 37.5% of the shares out of Rs. 6.25 crores which was worked out to Rs.2.34 crores. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contested that addition for the entire amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/JAB/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, wherein the Assessing Officer reiterated that payment made towards contract agreement was in fact business income chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of section 5 read with section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 35/JAB/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, wherein the Assessing Officer reiterated that payment made towards contract agreement was in fact business income chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of section 5 read with section

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