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”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,811Mumbai1,685Bangalore632Chennai357Karnataka331Ahmedabad319Hyderabad293Jaipur289Kolkata274Pune180Surat177Chandigarh177Indore177Cochin106Calcutta57Rajkot56Visakhapatnam48Cuttack42Raipur33Telangana30Lucknow25Nagpur24Amritsar23SC21Guwahati21Agra18Dehradun18Jodhpur15Varanasi5Jabalpur4Allahabad3Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Panaji3MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5Section 148(1)4Section 693Section 1473Section 1392Section 12Section 1482Addition to Income2Capital Gains2Revision u/s 263

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

69 stands, in any case, made out, and that the only possible consequence of non-substantiation of it’s claim of having acquired plant and machinery would be non-allowance of depreciation – for the current and even subsequent years (Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC)), no case for which, again, stands made

ANURODH SAHU,JABALPUR vs. ITO (IT AND TP), BHOPAL

2

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 11/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Anurodh Sahu, Vs. Ito (Ft & Tp), 3173, Tulsi Nagar Ranjhi, Jabalpur, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh Pan: Bktps9371L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anil Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Income Tax Officer (It & Tp), Bhopal At Jabalpur Dated 16.01.2024 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2018-19. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Assessment Order Issued By The Learned Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Directions Of Drp Is Unjustified & Base Less On The Basis Of Information & Documents Submitted. 2. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Never Countered Or Produced Before The Assessee The Source Of Information/ Documents On Basis Of Which The Said Addition Appealed Against Is Made During Whole Assessment Proceedings. 3. That The Learned Assessing Officer Never Questioned The Relevant Sources Of Income Produced & Submitted By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings & Brought Nothing On Record To Prove Or Justify The Assessee Having Some Other Source Or Hidden Source Of Income. 4. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Made The Additions On The Basis Of Incomplete Information Having No Evidence & Based On Surmises On The Directions Given By Drp.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271

price of those coins were Rs. 4,56,046/- and Rs. 7,832/-. The AO also wondered how the assessee had calculated profit of Rs. 1963/- without quantity wise details of purchase and sale. Thus, in view of the same and in view of the information of quantum of transaction done by assessee provided by the Koinex crypto exchange

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

ITA 60/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

ITA 134/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that