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.

201 results for “transfer pricing”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,409Delhi1,086Kolkata492Ahmedabad412Bangalore404Pune402Chennai208Karnataka207Jaipur201Chandigarh181Hyderabad112Cochin109Indore77Visakhapatnam73Surat54Rajkot50Raipur42Nagpur39Calcutta38Lucknow32Amritsar25Cuttack24Guwahati24SC17Telangana16Varanasi10Jodhpur8Ranchi7Jabalpur7Agra7Panaji5Dehradun4Kerala3Rajasthan2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income80Section 143(3)67Section 6853Section 153A45Section 13231Section 14724Section 14824Section 143(2)23Disallowance22

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 97/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavvaibhav Global Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Jaipur. Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv4679F

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, Pr.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 92CSection 92D

losses in the business, as discussed by me in detail earlier. As per TNMM study filed by the appellant, the margin on total cost earned by AE is 4.52% which is less when compared with 5.18% in case of other eleven comparable companies. This is within arm's length. Therefore, otherwise also no transfer pricing adjustment is called

Showing 1–20 of 201 · Page 1 of 11

...
Section 25021
Search & Seizure20
Unexplained Cash Credit16

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

price for the purpose of Section 80A(6) of the Act. 30.11. The ld. D/R in his submissions relied strongly on the order of TPO and the method adopted by TPO for determining market rate of power. According to ld. D/R, TPO has adopted the rate of power at which Distribution companies purchase power from the Generating companies. We find

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

price for the purpose of Section 80A(6) of the Act. 30.11. The ld. D/R in his submissions relied strongly on the order of TPO and the method adopted by TPO for determining market rate of power. According to ld. D/R, TPO has adopted the rate of power at which Distribution companies purchase power from the Generating companies. We find

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

carry forward of losses for the first time. Supreme Court itself at para9 of the order has held that the assessee can file a revised return in a case where there is an omission or a wrong statement. (b) In the case at hand the issue involved is determination of Arms’ Length Price (or transfer

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68Section 69C

forward losses. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. Assessing Officer the assessee has preferred anappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the additions made by the ld. AO observing as under:- “23. In view of the facts and circumstances borne out of the assessment order and legal precedents as discussed above

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1144/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

pricing, discounts, credit worthiness, number of years of relationship. Etc. and accordingly, it would not be feasible to consider a uniform credit period without taking into consideration the specific factors for the particular trade. - 2. In the instant case, the appellant has granted a credit period of up to 180 days to both AEs as well as third parties

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 731/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 153A

Transfer Pricing, present case of sale to the sister concern are not covered within its ambit. 3.11 Assessee company has all the right to sell its goods at a price, mutually negotiated, found prudent as a businessman provided there is no allegation of any receipt over and above the declared consideration. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 943/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

losses. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) refuted the appellant's contention that the order passed by SEBI is arbitrary because the order states-it is not possible to quantify the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made by the appellant. He further mentioned that this contention is also not maintainable because firstly an offence which is not quantifiable does

NEERU MOHAN NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: MS. Pallavi Khuntenta, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

carried forward to next year as Capital Loss. The assessee in the two grounds of appeal challenged the action of the lower authority in not granting the loss of Rs. 38,58,099/-. 10. The fact related to the claim of the loss is that the assessee made an agreement on 13.04.2007 for purchase of unit

RAHUL KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

carry forward of the capital loss nor had any capital profits for the year against which he could have set off the impugned loss. So the theory of claiming bogus short term capital loss falls flat. Here, we have a case in hand, wherein only on the basis of transacting in the name of the scrip (SMIL), tax liability

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

loss account, will not be increased by the amount of wealth-tax paid because under clause (a) of theExplanation to section 115J(1A), what is contemplated is the amount of income-tax paid. Under the saidclause, payment of wealth-tax is not contemplated. Therefore, the net profit shall not be increased by theamount of wealth-tax paid by the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

ITA 1090/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

carried 361,43,40,689/- forward When the Assessing Officer questioned the assessee company regarding short term capital loss, it submitted following reply:- o25 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota “"During the year, CFCL Technologies Limited, Cayman Islands, a subsidiary of the Company, merged with its wholly owned subsidiary CFCL Ventures Limited, Cayman

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

ITA 1091/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

carried 361,43,40,689/- forward When the Assessing Officer questioned the assessee company regarding short term capital loss, it submitted following reply:- o25 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota “"During the year, CFCL Technologies Limited, Cayman Islands, a subsidiary of the Company, merged with its wholly owned subsidiary CFCL Ventures Limited, Cayman

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

ITA 1097/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT &
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

carried 361,43,40,689/- forward When the Assessing Officer questioned the assessee company regarding short term capital loss, it submitted following reply:- o25 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota “"During the year, CFCL Technologies Limited, Cayman Islands, a subsidiary of the Company, merged with its wholly owned subsidiary CFCL Ventures Limited, Cayman

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

transferring trade profits and losses from one client to another client account by amending client codes in ‘Future and Option' segment in NSE under the pretence of correcting errors. The gain or loss book entries were then employed to evade tax. The letter stated that many persons utilized losses generated by unscrupulous brokers through mala fide modification of client codes

WEALTHY SKY DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)(d)Section 73Section 73(4)

carry forward of speculation losses from eight assessment years to four assessment years. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2006 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2006-07 and subsequent years. [Clauses 14 and 20]“ In view of above amendment, it is submitted that derivative transactions are non speculative from AY 2006-07 and therefore

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

transferred whiting of profits and lost on analysis it has been found that there is unilateral flow of profits and losses consequent to CCMS. In the case of the assessee the trend of client code modification is clearly visible. The assessing the modified client has shifted in losses in order to set off the profits that were determined during

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S PYRAMID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri D.C. Kothari (CIT)

transferring the Profit or Loss but name of Motisons Commodities Pvt. Ltd. or of assessee company has not been mentioned by them. The allegation of Ld. A.O. that the assessee company has purchased loss as it was having profits in MCX is also not correct. The assessee company was engaged in the business, the nature of which is speculative which